Anna Fuchs – författare

Was ist Kultur, und wieso ist sie viel mehr als Nationalkultur? Wie kommt sie in unseren Kopf, und was macht sie mit uns? Wie unterscheiden sich Weltbild, Kommunikationsstil und Konfliktverhalten, und welche zwischenmenschlichen Dynamiken entstehen? Fragen, die angesichts der aktuellen gesellschaftlichen Entwicklungen von großer Relevanz sind. Anna Fuchs zeigt anschaulich und praxisnah, wie wir unterschiedliche transkulturelle Situationen souverän meistern können und welche Methoden und Modelle der kommunikationspychologische Werkzeugkoffer dafür bietet.

Seminar paper from the year 2012 in the subject Politics - Topic: International Organisations, grade: 1,3, University of Tubingen (Institut fur Politikwissenschaft), course: Introduction to International Relations, language: English, abstract: [...] What seems to be the greatest puzzle about the "e;ICC-story"e; is the fact that the Statutewas adopted despite US opposition. It seemed impossible that an independent courtcould be created without the support of the US. And it is indeed remarkable that somany states agreed on a strong, independent ICC although the US also launched an activecampaign against it and tried to pressure states into signing bilateral agreements inorder to prevent US citizens from becoming subjects to ICC jurisdiction. But, in myopinion, this is not the only puzzle, because there was another state that acted differentlythan expected. This state is Jordan, who was the only Arab state not only to support theICC but also to join the Like-Minded Group prior to the conference. It is not surprisingthat authoritarian regimes opposed the court. It is surprising however, that Jordan wasthe exception to that rule and I think that decision deserves to be examined further. While republican liberalism offers an explanation to US behavior regarding the ICC, itfails at explaining the Jordanian case. It predicts that authoritarian regimes will sidewith well established democracies in opposition to binding international human rights regimes. Although this did not count for Jordan, I still think that liberalism can explainwhy the Kingdom supported the ICC. In order to prove this hypothesis, I will outline thebasic assumptions of (republican) liberalism. Afterwards I will briefly describe thepolitical, economic and societal situation in Jordan in order to identify the aspectsneeded to apply the theory. Finally, I will show how liberalism can explain why Jordanas an authoritarian regime supported the ICC although it was not supposed to .

Seminar paper from the year 2012 in the subject Politics - Region: Near East, Near Orient, grade: 2,0, University of Tubingen (Institut fur Politikwissenschaft), course: Current Issues in the Mediterranean: Revolutions in the Arab World, language: English, abstract: Bahrain is one of the countries of the so-called "e;Arab Spring"e; but it differs from other revolutionary states: First of all, it is the only one of the six Gulf monarchies in which the existing ruling system was seriously threatened by the demonstrations. Also, the protests as such have a special significance, not only because with up to a hundred thousand people taking it to the streets they were remarkably bigger than the protests in other monarchies, but also because compared to the population, these were probably the biggest demonstrations in the Arab world. Nevertheless, the protests have (up until now) failed.

Seminar paper from the year 2010 in the subject Politics - Political systems in general and in comparison, grade: 1,7, University of Tubingen (Institut fur Politikwissenschaft), course: Vergleichende Analyse politischer Systeme im Vorderen Orient, language: English, abstract: The foreign policy of many states in the Middle East recently shows a tendency towards Western orientation. Since the monarchies of the region, like the Gulf monarchies or Jordan, have more in common with Western states than with radical Arab states, their foreign policy relations have always been more Western-orientated than those of other states in the Middle East. However, even some of the non-monarchical states, such as Syria, now pursue a policy of openness to the rest of the world. This leads to a similar Western-orientation in Syria and Jordan which is caused by various national patterns.

Essay from the year 2011 in the subject Politics - Region: Near East, Near Orient, grade: 1,7, University of Haifa (International School), course: Arab-Israeli Relations, language: English, abstract: Considering the numerous efforts to reach an agreement between the conflict parties and that all of them failed sooner or later because of specific issues in which none of the parties is ready to compromise - namely Jerusalem, settlements in the West Bank, refugees and the nature of a Palestinian state - one could start to assume that peace will never be reached in the Middle East, especially not in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That assumption however is based on the wrong attitude towards the whole region and the conflict in general. Western societies tend to devolve their own mentality and culture on other world regions and expect the same outcome as they produce in Western cultures. That is not only arrogant but also impossible: The Middle Eastern culture and mentality is completely different than ours and even if one could argue that at least the Israeli state is Western-orientated and comparable to Western democracies, that is definitively not the case for the Arab and Muslim states in the region. Once we realize and accept that those states' mentality is completely different, we should ask ourselves whether it is really the best way to force the conflict parties to negotiate with each other or to try to impose our values and structures on them. The past has shown that this behavior rather produces a negative outcome and can even exacerbate the situation.

Essay from the year 2011 in the subject Politics - Topic: Peace and Conflict, Security, grade: 1,3, University of Haifa (International School), course: Honors Seminar in Peace and Conflict Studies: Regional Conflict, language: English, abstract: Throughout history, it has always been Protestants against Catholics and vice versa, with some more and some less violent phases. Although the clashes appeared between those two religious groups, it is important to notice that this conflict is no longer about religion, but about politics. It is about the future of the Northern Irish state, whether it will remain part of the United Kingdom (UK) or whether it will become part of the Republic of Ireland. The majority of Protestants support the first option whereas the majority of Catholics support the latter. But that is only a coincidence, they are competing nations and not competing religions, since neither side denies the other's religion's right to exist. I argue that this conflict perfectly illustrates how contradicting identities and interests can cause a conflict, especially if the state is too weak to control the different forces within its territory.