Date: 2020-01-01

Creator: Laura H.C. Howells

Access: Open access

Digital authoritarianism is on the rise around the world and threatens the data privacy and rights of both domestic and international Internet users. However, scholarship on digital authoritarianism remains limited in scope and case study selection. This study contributes a new, more comprehensive analytical framework for the study of Internet governance and applies it to the case studies of China and Russia. Special attention is paid to the still understudied Russian Internet governance model. After thorough literature review and novel data collection and analysis, this paper identifies relative centralization of network infrastructure and the extent and pace of change in governance as the most notable differences between the two models. These points of divergence may be explained by two theories; the varieties of authoritarianism hypothesis posits that different political systems face persistent and unique constraints to governance of the digital realm. The development trajectory theory argues that each country’s technological development path foreshadows the systems’ capacity for and extent of governance. This study is among the first to distinguish between Internet governance strategies of authoritarian regimes.

Date: 2020-01-01

Creator: Olivia Giles

Access: Open access

This honors thesis analyzes human rights campaigns to end the practice of state-sponsored torture in Syria during the presidency of Bashar al-Assad. It compares the 2000 Damascus Spring and the 2011 Arab Spring using the concept of the “contentious spiral model.” The model is based on the elements of the original “spiral model” introduced in The Power of Human Rights (1999) and the factors of contentious politics discussed in Dynamics of Contention (2001). It suggests that human rights movements that emerge from uprisings need effective mobilization by domestic and international actors. Sustained pressure from both sources should gradually force the state to make concessions until there is an absence of human rights violations. The study uses research on social movements and international politics in Syria, in addition to data on the practice of torture, to suggest that human rights campaigns to end state-sponsored torture in Syria have been unsuccessful because of the interference of Assad’s foreign alliances. These countries have helped the regime backlash against the opposition during uprisings, which has led to the fracturing of the movement. During the Damascus Spring, this interference took the form of shifting the world’s focus to other regional issues, and during the Arab Spring, Syria’s allies directly supported the Assad regime militarily, financially, and legally.

Date: 2021-01-01

Creator: Katherine Davidson

Access: Open access

Russia’s 2016 disinformation campaign during the U.S. elections represented the first large-scale campaign against the United States and was intended to cause American citizens to question the fundamental security and resilience of U.S. democracy. A similar campaign during the 2016 U.K. Brexit referendum supported the campaign to leave the European Union. This paper assesses the policy formation process in the United States and United Kingdom in response to 2016 Russian disinformation using a bureaucratic politics framework. Focusing on the role of sub-state organizations in policy formation, the paper identifies challenges to establishing an effective policy response to foreign disinformation, particularly in the emergence of leadership and bargaining, and the impact of centralization of power in the U.K. Discussion of the shift in foreign policy context since the end of the Cold War, which provided a greater level of foreign policy consensus, as well as specific challenges presented by the cyber deterrence context, supplements insights from bureaucratic politics. Despite different governmental structures, both countries struggled to achieve collaborative and systematic policy processes; analysis reveals the lack of leadership and coordination in the United States and both the lack of compromise and effective fulfillment of responsibilities in the United Kingdom. Particular challenges of democracies responding to exercises of sharp power by authoritarian governments point to the need for a wholistic response from public and private entities and better definition of intelligence agencies’ responsibility to election security in the U.K.