Patrick Wagner – författare

Bachelor Thesis from the year 2003 in the subject Politics - Other International Politics Topics, grade: 1 (A), University of Kent (Department of Politics and International Relations), language: English, abstract: Numerous societies who are in a transition period between an authoritarian regime and democracy face the question of how to deal with their past. In most cases the option to forget what has happened and to concentrate only on the future is neither possible nor desired by the people. For many the choice is between setting up a truth commission and dealing with the perpetrators of gross human rights violations in special or conventional courts. Before discussing the South African and the German examples, part one of this paper examines the different concepts of justice proposed by the two mechanisms of dealing with the past. Part two then focuses on the South African experience to deal with the atrocities of the apartheid regime by means of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The commission's approach on how to deal with the past will be discussed alongside both its achievements and shortcomings. The controversial debate about the TRC s policy to grant amnesty for perpetrators of gross human rights violations in return for the truth shall be a central feature of this part. The German experience and the International Military Tribunal (IMT) at Nuremberg are the topics of part three. One of the most important achievements of the IMT certainly was its impact on international law. For the first time in history, although this was not the primary aim of the tribunal, crimes against humanity were part of the allegations against the defendants. On the other hand, the IMT was criticized heavily for constituting victors justice and therefore its judgement was argued to be illegitimately imposed. Finally, part four compares the two mechanisms, truth commissions and trials or military tribunals, and seeks to point out their advantages and disadvantages. Clearly, it must be argued that the more traditional approach to achieve justice by punishment pursuit by trials or military tribunals satisfies victims desire for retribution better than truth commission could ever do. Nevertheless, truth commissions can be employed in circumstances where trials are impossible as well as they are the only mechanism to break the circle of revenge by promoting forgiveness and reconciliation. However, the problem remains that reconciliation might be a desired end point but above all it is a process. (Andrew Rigby) One can thus hardly evaluate the success of a truth commission as the process it possibly initiated takes several generations to show its results.

Essay from the year 2002 in the subject Politics - Region: Russia, grade: 1 (A), University of Kent (Department of Politics and International Relations), language: English, abstract: Nowadays federalism is a widely used concept for organising states around the world. Although, genuinely federal systems can only be found in a minority of states, one can observe a trend towards regionalism and local self-government in many countries. A main principle of the EU, for example, is to give the regions within its member states as much power as possible - this means government at the lowest possible level. Even traditionally unitary states like Britain now allows regional parliaments. The state as a unitary entity, although not everywhere, seems to have lost its ability to unite a country. People believe that regional problems are best dealt with at a regional level rather than from a central government. Especially states with a very large territory seem to be prone to be organised in a federal way. Here, federalism is a guarantor of stability and integration, as a large territory usually includes many different ethnic groups and regions which claim a certain amount of independence within the state. Russia would thus perfectly fit into this pattern and one could think that federalism has a long tradition. However, the history is different: the Russian Empire under the Tsars was organised centrally and although the USSR claimed to be federal, regional politics was determined by Moscow. The fall of communism was used by many Soviet republics to gain independence. Those who stayed in the Russian Federation were given at least cultural independence, but linked to loyalty to Russia. Yeltsin s 1993 Constitution was the result of long struggles and bargaining about the degree of autonomy for the republics. Finally, the word autonomy was not used to describe their status but the republics were allowed to have their own constitution, national flag and president. This was then probably the highest degree of sovereignty, the republics have had for the last 100 years. Before engaging into a discussion on the effectiveness of Russian Federalism, this paper will firstly define Federalism in general and establish what is so special about the Russian federalism. Secondly, the problems with the present system shall be mentioned and recent attempts by President Putin to solve these problems shall be looked at.

Essay from the year 2002 in the subject Politics - Topic: International Organisations, grade: 1 (A), University of Kent (Department of Politics and International Relations), language: English, abstract: The UN has seen several reforms since its foundation in 1945. A constantly changing political situation and new areas for UN intervention and help have for a long time made reforms necessary. "e;Reform of the United Nations has been under discussion for decades."e; However, the need for reforms is now greater than ever. The end of the Cold War has marked the beginning of a new world order, and also the beginning of a new era for the UN. A whole range of new problems and issues have appeared on its agenda: environmental problems, gender issues, refugees and international terrorism to name but a few. In addition to these new and demanding tasks, the UN still has to deal with ordinary economical development, peacekeeping and all the rest of its traditional tasks. The UN simply cannot carry out these various tasks effectively if its financial and managerial structure is not fundamentally reformed. Even if in the future a common view on the role of the UN can be found, will a global organisation like the UN not always need to be changed? Can there ever be a UN that meets all demands and is finished ? Obviously, the world has changed a lot since the foundation of the UN in 1945, especially after the end of the Cold War, now making the need for reform very immediate. Yet, politics and international relations are not static and subject to change at any time. It seems to be inevitable, that the UN as a reflection of the world s political situation will always be in need for adjustment and reform.

Essay from the year 2002 in the subject Politics - Political Theory and the History of Ideas Journal, grade: 1+, University of Kent (Department of Politics and International Relations), language: English, abstract: The moral standing of states is one of the most essential issues in contemporary international relations. Wars have been fought and lives have been lost in the name of the state. A majority of people seems to value states very highly, or they would not be prepared to give their lives for the protection of the state. Being a member of a state must thus have a number of valuable advantages and generally be regarded as a good thing. But is also evident that not every state will do for every group of people. In the struggle for a state of their own many groups and nations have fought and still fight violent wars . Different states are valued differently by its citizens. However, the question about the moral standing of states is not a simple one and cannot be answered with reference only to taste and preference. The state is a fundamental concept of the international order since the 17th century and has been internalised by every actor in international relations. An international order without the state is hardly to imagine from a classical point of view. And even critical thinkers have problems explaining what comes after the state, how does the world look like without the state?The question is, whether states are of any distinct value to us or whether states just stand in the way of our individual freedom. Therefore, this paper shall conclude that the state is an ethically valuable institution. The state might not be a perfect institution, nor is it an ideal solution for everyone everywhere , but it seems there is no real alternative to the state. Even critical thinkers have not been able to find a satisfactory description of how our world would look like without states.

Essay from the year 2003 in the subject Politics - Topic: Peace and Conflict, Security, grade: 1+ (A), University of Kent (Department of Politics and International Relations), language: English, abstract: When the USA dropped two nuclear bombs on the Japanese cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima in August 1945, the world witnessed the first and so far the last use of these weapons. Their devastating effect led to a worldwide fear of atomic bombs, but could not, however, prevent a number of states from developing these fatal devices. In fact, the two superpowers engaged in the subsequent arms race during the Cold War, which, in the end, left both with a nuclear arsenal big enough to destroy the entire world several times over. Although these weapons exist in huge amounts, they have never been used for military purposes since. This distinction is important to make, because the superpowers did make use of their nuclear arsenal on a political level, namely with the strategy of nuclear deterrence. Based on the US assurance that a Soviet attack on the USA or its allies would be answered with massive retaliation, this strategy has prevented a nuclear war. By looking at the concept of nuclear deterrence in more detail this essay will argue that nuclear deterrence must be seen as a conflict, even though arguments can be found underlining the view that it is not. It is certainly true that the abstract nature of nuclear strategy makes an explanation in the traditional Clausewitzian sense of conflict impossible. However, recognising the fact that the arrival of the nuclear bomb has changed the purpose of military strategy fundamentally, namely from the purpose of winning wars to the purpose of preventing wars , inevitably leads to a new concept of conflict. Nuclear strategy has introduced a shift of strategic thinking away from the military towards politics. This does of course mean that conflict now has to be defined in political terms. Conflict can no longer only be seen as the confrontation of armies in the battlefield but must include the threat of use of force, as the political dimension of conflict, as well.

Essay from the year 2002 in the subject Law - European and International Law, Intellectual Properties, grade: 1 (A), University of Kent (Kent Law School), language: English, abstract: The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians over the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is one of the most complicated conflicts in the world. Attempts to resolve the conflict have failed in the past and a resolution seems unlikely to emerge in the near future. Partly, this is due to the fact that the situation is extremely complex and the conflict very old. History, politics and international law together with religion, nationalism and pride are entangled to form this conflict. For both sides the conflict has reached an emotional level where belief is more important than rational decisions. A lot has been written about the Israel-Palestine conflict and in recent years more and more critique of Israel has emerged. This is particularly interesting as usually every criticism of its actions or policies is turned down by Israel as anti-Semitism. One thus has to be extremely careful when writing about Israel although international law seems to be relatively clear about the 1967 occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. In order to examine the legality of the occupation, this paper will discuss the situation from both angles and look at the sources of international law relevant to this case. These are the Charter of the United Nations in general and the United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 in particular. In addition, customary international law has developed to a jus cogens, prohibiting the use of force at all for settling international disputes. Finally, this paper shall conclude that any justification of the occupation is doubtful and there is little evidence in international law that might legitimise Israel s actions. And even if the initial occupation could be legitimised under Article 51 of the UN Charter as an act of self-defence, the prolonged occupation would still lack any legal basis.

Essay from the year 2003 in the subject Law - European and International Law, Intellectual Properties, grade: 1 (A), University of Kent (Kent Law School), language: English, abstract: International law provides for a general prohibition of the use or the threat of use of force to settle international disputes. Only very few exceptions from this rule exist and are clearly defined in the UN Charter. The question must thus be, if resolution 1441 constitutes such an exception of the rule and thus authorises the use of force against Iraq. A close examination of the resolution shall therefore be the starting point of this discussion. However, it must be said that the wording of any Security Council resolution is subject to individual interpretation. A second step must thus be to apply rules for the interpretation of Security Council resolutions if such rules exist at all. It appears that only very little authoritative guidelines to the interpretation of Security Council resolutions exist and that thus the only reliable source of guidance is previous interpretations. Those promoting direct intervention in Iraq without a further resolution refer to NATO bombings of Kosovo. Similarly to the present situation in Iraq, the Security Council did not explicitly authorise the use of force in that case either. Later, the international community claimed that because no agreement could be reached in the Security Council, military action without Security Council authorisation was necessary in order to prevent genocide. The argument being of course, that a legitimate aim could justify the use of illegal means. The question whether direct intervention in Iraq can be legitimate on the basis of resolution 1441 seems to be a much broader question, which embraces moral and ethical considerations, too. Unfortunately, a discussion of the moral and ethical legitimacy of intervention in Iraq cannot be the topic of this essay. Nevertheless, it is important even in legal considerations to keep these aspects of the debate in mind, because the Security Council itself is not a purely legal but a political institution and any of its decisions is determined by more than just legal factors. After having looked at the Kosovo case and its implications for the present situation it seems to be essential to examine the role of customary law for the Iraq conflict. This is because if an opinio juris has emerged among states to forcefully intervene for humanitarian or other reasons resolution 1441 would not be needed to authorise the use of force.

Essay from the year 2003 in the subject Politics - Topic: Peace and Conflict, Security, grade: 2+ (B+), University of Kent (Brussels School of International Studies), course: Theories of International Conflict, language: English, abstract: For centuries, inter-state war has been standard practice in international relations. In the second half of the twentieth century the possibility of a nuclear confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union was the major security concern in the world. Yet, with the end of the Cold War, the security threats states are faced with have changed radically. The risk of a major nuclear war has virtually disappeared. "e;Global nuclear warfare is no longer the primary international security concern."e; Today, war as a means to settle international disputes has largely been eliminated. The developed countries have established a security regime that safeguards peaceful relations among them. "e;[...] war among the leading great powers - the most developed states of the United States, West Europe, and Japan - will not occur in the future, and indeed is no longer a source of concern for them."e; However, the world is by no means safer than it has been in the past. New risks like international terrorism, organised crime, the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons to rogue states or criminal organisations, political or religious extremism, diseases like HIV/Aids, environmental disasters, poverty and inequality, etc. present new challenges to states and societies. Traditional security institutions like the military are not necessarily capable of dealing with these new risks, but must redefine their role and need to be reformed. Different countries have different approaches to the reform of their military, perhaps most significant is the difference between the USA and Germany. While the US military reform is concentrated around technology and strategies, Germany goes beyond the purely operational level, recognises that the new security challenges cannot be dealt with by simply modernising weapons systems and instead seeks to reform the institutional framework of the military.

Essay from the year 2003 in the subject Politics - Topic: Peace and Conflict, Security, grade: 2 (B), University of Kent (Brussls School of International Studies), course: Negotiation and Mediation, language: English, abstract: Since the end of the Cold War the nature and perception of international conflict has changed significantly. Instead of inter-state war, intra-state conflicts now constitute the majority of current conflicts. "e;Global nuclear warfare is no longer the primary international security concern. It has been displaced by [...] excessively violent and destructive intra-state or internal conflicts."e; And these conflicts, which would have been regarded as purely internal matters during the Cold War, are now seen as being of international concern. Civil wars which are normally regionalised, are often nevertheless deemed to be a threat to international peace and security. As a result, the international community has become more and more involved in the resolution of civil wars, often by mediating peace negotiations between the parties involved. However, the resolution of civil war is one the most challenging tasks in Conflict Resolution. Only a minority of negotiations result in a lasting peace and only under exceptional circumstances is this achieved without a third party mediating the negotiations. Although many of the attempts to settle civil wars by mediation have failed, it is clear that the involvement of international mediators makes civil war negotiations more likely to succeed and in some cases indeed helps to find long-term solutions to the conflict.

Essay from the year 2004 in the subject Politics - General and Theories of International Politics, grade: 2+ (B+), University of Kent (Brussels School of International Studies), language: English, abstract: 85 years after its formal establishment , the discipline of International Relations is currently engaged in what is known as the 'Third Debate'. At the heart of this debate is the question "e;to what extend can society be studied in the same way as nature?"e; Positivists hold that the social world is not fundamentally different form the natural world and that, as a result, the same epistemology applies. Positivists aim to explain the social world and believe that causal laws and generalisations can be found through observation. Post-positivists argue that the social and the natural world are not alike and that scientific explanation is neither a valid nor an adequate form of inquiry for the social sciences. According to this view, the social world primarily consists of ideas and concepts that cannot be translated into scientific terms but need to be interpreted. Hence, the aim of post-positivists is understanding social phenomena. The two positions are commonly perceived as mutually exclusive and the advocates of the two camps are hardly willing to engage in a constructive debate. This Third Debate will not be much of a debate if its protagonists are not speaking to each other, but that is where things largely stand. Nevertheless, Wendt, among others, has argued that social science in general and International Relations in particular might benefit less from siding with either positivism or post-positivism, but more from combining the two, and that it is indeed possible to build a bridge between the two philosophies of science. Such a combination would acknowledge the ontology of social science to be post-positivist, that is idea-based, while at the same time proposing to adopt a positivist epistemology , although pure scientific explanation and empiricism are not seen as appropriate methods.

Essay from the year 2004 in the subject Politics - General and Theories of International Politics, grade: 2, University of Kent (Brussels School of International Studies), course: International Relations Theory, language: English, abstract: International regimes represent an integral part of globalisation and according to Little, the number of regimes increases steadily. Moreover, regimes account for a great deal of everyday convenience, ranging from seemingly simple practices like sending a letter abroad to the most complex economic interactions. In fact, "e;there is now no area of international intercourse devoid of regimes, where states are not circumscribed, to some extend or other, by the existence of mutually accepted sets of rules."e; Undisputedly, the realist paradigm dominates any debate in International Relations. Realism has dominated international relations theory at least since World War II. It is therefore obvious to begin the search for an explanation for the growing number of international regimes and states willingness to participate in them within realism itself. Yet, how can realism, that regards states as sovereign units concerned primarily with their own security and survival in an anarchic international system, account for extensive cooperation in regimes?In order to assess whether realism provides a suitable explanation for the obvious success of regimes, this essay shall compare the realist approach to the neo-liberal account of regimes. Although the existence of international regimes is acknowledged by neo-liberals and realists, the two groups have competing theories about the formation of those regimes. Having looked at these two different approaches to explain the existence of regimes, this essay shall argue that the notion of self-interest is, perhaps surprisingly, the very reason why states would want to participate in regimes and not at all an impediment, as the question suggests. However, the realist explanation of regimes does not stress the importance of states self-interest as a cause for regime formation. It is the neo-liberal regime theory that holds that self-interest is a motive for states to cooperate in regimes. Hence, this essay will conclude that the realist theory does not provide an accurate account for the creation of regimes and their durability.

Essay from the year 2004 in the subject Politics - Region: Western Europe, grade: 2+ (B), University of Kent (Brussels School of International Studies), language: English, abstract: Six years after the Good Friday Agreement was signed and after a promising, although troubled start of the institutional framework it has put in place, Northern Ireland is, following the suspension of devolution on 14 October 2002, yet again under direct rule from Westminster. Centuries of conflict, decades of violent troubles and diametrically opposed demands of the groups involved make the Northern Ireland question to one of the most difficult conflicts of our time. Nevertheless, there was genuine optimism both among the parties involved and the international community that the Agreement would succeed and resolve the conflict. However, in the political reality of Northern Ireland, the Agreement soon reached its limits, and people realised that it takes more than an assembly and a power-sharing executive to overcome Ulster s deep-rooted sectarian divisions. Internal disagreement in the unionist and nationalist camps over the direction the Agreement is likely to take them and the still unresolved question of IRA weapons decommissioning leave the future of the Agreement in serious doubt. The Agreement has been widely acknowledged as being consociational and consistent with the four principles of power-sharing identified by Lijphart. This paper will thus also discuss the theoretical foundation of the Agreement. Here, it will particularly focus on the role of the voting system (Single Transferable Vote) employed for the Assembly elections, which is unusual for consociational models. This paper will conclude that the Agreement is undeniably a major breakthrough. Even if the Agreement itself does not solve the conflict, by creating a prolonged period of peace in which political dialogue can take place, it could be a vital step towards a future settlement. But is the current situation in Northern Ireland really a transitional period likely to lead to a solution of the conflict in the future or is it what Trimble calls the continuation of war by other means ?The Agreement was certainly not an overall failure as it has managed to bring parties together in political institutions which have refused to sit together in the same room for decades. But its limitations must also be clear: the war might be over but the conflict is far from ended. Since the Agreement has failed to address the underlying issues of the conflict and merely regulates violence, it cannot be regarded as a permanent and sustainable solution.

Essay from the year 2004 in the subject Politics - Topic: Peace and Conflict, Security, grade: 2+ (B+), University of Kent (Brussels School of International Studies), language: English, abstract: For more than four decades during the Cold War, deterrence has been a key element of US defence policy and it can even be argued that the strategy of nuclear deterrence thwarted a major military confrontation between the Soviet Union and the USA. With the end of superpower tensions and the end of the Cold War itself, the deterrence system became obsolete. However, the terrorist attacks of September 11 brought deterrence back on the political agenda. In its National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction the USA calls for "e;new methods of deterrence"e; in order to meet the threats of global terrorism. The question arises whether deterrence, which seems to have worked in a traditional setting, where one state deters military action of another state, can work in a non-traditional confrontation between a state and an abstract opponent like terrorism? In order to establish whether deterrence can work against terrorism, this essay will firstly look at the theory of deterrence. What are the criteria that must be fulfilled for deterrence to be successful and why does it not work in all situations?Secondly, this essay identifies the main characteristics of the terrorist threat and establishes what the difficulties of deterrence in this specific asymmetric confrontation might be. The main difficulty seems to be the problem to execute appropriate action should deterrence fail, since the target is often unclear and the perpetrator of the terrorist action most likely dead. Special attention is given to the moral dilemma that derives from suggestions to execute retaliation actions against the families of suicide bombers in order to deter others from becoming suicide bombers as suggested by Steinberg. He argues that terrorism can indeed be deterred, if the concept was applied correctly, that is against terrorist leaders, who are not so quick to give up their own lives . Finally, this essay will conclude that although it might be possible to deter individual terrorist actions , terrorism itself cannot be deterred by military means. And if the aim is indeed to eradicate terrorism completely, like the rhetoric used in the war on terrorism seems to suggest, deterrence is certainly not the most effective strategy.

Master's Thesis from the year 2004 in the subject Politics - Topic: Peace and Conflict, Security, grade: 2 (B), University of Kent (Brussels School of International Studies), language: English, abstract: Although the world stood united behind America when the dust of the collapsed twin towers of the World Trade Centre settled, differences between the United States and Europe soon became apparent. Europe might have supported the US in Afghanistan, both politically and militarily, but diverging interests already became apparent when the US sidelined NATO and preferred to lead 'Operation Enduring Freedom' itself. The dispute escalated over the US plans to continue the war on terror in Iraq. Here, it emerged that the US and Europe do not share the same world view. While the US seem to perceive the world in Hobbesian terms, and believe that military strength is the only means to achieve security, Europe appears to understand security in the Kantian sense and believes that 'perpetual peace' can be achieved. The question that divided Europe and the US over Iraq then is more than a simple difference of opinion but reflects a deep philosophical division: Can global security be achieved by force or through sustained dedication to a set of normative principles implemented by the world community? Consequently, the counterterrorism strategies formulated in Europe and the US are of a fundamentally different nature, which cannot be explained merely by the discrepancy in military capabilities. If that would be the case, Europe would have begun to build up its military potential by now. Acknowledging that terrorism has become one of the most pressing political problems, (David Whittaker) the aim of this paper is to compare the US and the European approach to global terrorism, establish reasons for the differences and evaluate which approach might be more effective. As September 11, has changed our perception of security by demonstrating that even the US is, despite its unrivalled military superiority, vulnerable to attack, carried out by just 19 men armed with cardboard cutters, we should remain aware that the responses we chose to these attacks reflect our dedication to human rights, the rule of law and indeed freedom. Relying on military strength is easier than to acknowledge that terrorism is caused by a fundamentally unjust economical and political world order that markedly favours the West, yet it might ultimately prove to become more dangerous than terrorism itself, as it does nothing to resolve the problem but reinforces the world order that is the cause of the problem.