Query Result Set
Skip Navigation Links
   ActiveUsers:578Hits:20139161Skip Navigation Links
Show My Basket
Contact Us
IDSA Web Site
Ask Us
Today's News
HelpExpand Help
Advanced search

  Hide Options
Sort Order Items / Page
SELIGMAN, STEVEN (2) answer(s).
 
SrlItem
1
ID:   146492


Explaining Canadian foreign policy toward Sri Lanka under the Harper government / Seligman, Steven   Journal Article
Seligman, Steven Journal Article
0 Rating(s) & 0 Review(s)
Summary/Abstract Canada’s policy toward Sri Lanka underwent a significant shift following the end of the Sri Lankan Civil War in May 2009. Originally, the Harper government viewed Sri Lanka’s war with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) through the prism of the global war on terrorism. Canada listed the LTTE as a terrorist group and offered only mild and sporadic criticism of the Sri Lankan government’s human rights record. However, after winning a majority government in 2011, the Harper government has described itself as one of the world’s leading proponents of reform in Sri Lanka and has condemned the government of Sri Lanka in strong terms. This paper examines the Harper government’s foreign policy toward Sri Lanka and argues that electoral politics came to play an increasingly significant role.
        Export Export
2
ID:   107909


Politics and principle at the UN Human Rights Commission and Council (1992–2008) / Seligman, Steven   Journal Article
Seligman, Steven Journal Article
0 Rating(s) & 0 Review(s)
Publication 2011.
Summary/Abstract This article examines states' voting records at the United Nations Human Rights Commission/Council during the period 1992-2008 on resolutions targeting specific countries, and tests competing hypotheses about voting behaviour derived from liberal and realist theory. I conclude that a liberal framework explains voting behaviour on resolutions addressing most states and show that democracies were more likely than non-democracies to support resolutions criticizing states with poor human rights records. However, I also show that the liberal framework fails to explain voting behaviour on resolutions addressing Israel because the issue uniquely polarized states according to geo-political groupings - Western democracies often opposed resolutions addressing Israel, but developing world states often supported these resolutions. These findings hold for both the Commission and its successor body: the Human Rights Council.
        Export Export