The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rules on controversial human rights cases in Russia to carry out the country's commitment to the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). However, over the past 30 years, Russia has sought to disregard its membership in the Council of Europe by overruling ECtHR rulings. In 2015, Russia passed Law no. 7-FKZ to allow the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation the ability to overrule the ECtHR’s rulings, when deemed in conflict with the Constitution of the Russian Federation. To decipher the impact of Russian Law no. 7-FKZ, I investigate the implementation of ECtHR rulings before and after 2015. This project examines the consolidating democracy of Russia's attempt to disregard international law by tightening access to courts, overruling and limiting the implementation of ECtHR rulings, and limiting individual freedoms and liberties. To answer, I develop an original case law dataset from 2014 to 2020 that includes the key ECtHR cases involving Russia. I code for the implementation level of ECtHR judgments to determine Russia’s ability to obstruct ECtHR judgments, after the enactment of Law no. 7-FKZ. Preliminary findings suggest that Russia is successful in limiting the reach of international law. These findings suggest de-democratizing nations have the ability to isolate on an international level, highlighting the struggles international courts may face when their legitimacy is challenged.

The concept of the separation of church and state was not a priority for the founders of the Irish Republic. Elements of the Catholic religion were woven into the Constitution, a reality that characterizes the laws in this country to this day. Despite this beginning, Ireland is transitioning away from a legal system and laws based on traditional and conservative religious values and adopting more progressive policies that reflect the current norms and values of society. In order to better understand this transition and how it is reflected in the legal system, I examine the legalization of abortion in Ireland focusing on the case law of the Supreme Court of Ireland and rulings regarding Irish reproductive rights by international courts. In this project, I assess whether the decline of traditional religious values in Irish society allowed the Irish Supreme Court to become more activist or progressive. To answer this question, I develop an original case law dataset from 1973 to 2010 coding the judgments for change in the legality of abortion. Further I utilize World Values Survey data to map changes in religious values during this time period. Preliminary results suggest that international pressure and change in the dominance of traditional and conservative religious values pushed the legalization of abortion. This research informs our general understandings of religious values and the legal system, and the role of courts in bringing change.

The effects lobbying has on Congressional voting has been debated for a long time. Despite scholars’ consistent findings that there is no relationship between campaign contributions and a legislator’s vote, special interest groups continue to routinely contribute money to members of Congress. In this project, I consider the connection between contributions from the finance industry and failed legislative efforts aiming at regulating Wall Street or providing greater financial consumer protections. I employ multivariate regression analysis to examine lobbying contributions to individual members of Congress and their subsequent roll call votes in Congressional sessions during 2009-2018. I test for an explicit connection between the finance industry’s lobbying contributions and the inability for Congress to pass financial reforms post-2008. Since campaign finance plays a vital role in the ability for a politician to be elected to office, I expect to find that a congressperson receiving contributions from the finance industry will be inclined to vote in favor of those interests. The findings from this research contribute to the conversation of the influence of big money in American politics and the influence those interests have on specific legislation.

Budget policy in the United States is not uniform across agencies, with some budgets subject to cuts year after year. This research looks to answer why some agencies are more affected by budget cuts. I theorize that differences are explained by the politicization of the agency’s function. Specifically, I emphasize the role of neoliberalism, a political ideology which promotes fiscal and moral conservatism, as well as laissez-faire approaches to government. This presentation hypothesizes that subfunctions that have roles which conflict with neoliberal values, such as those pertaining to education, training, and social services, will experience non-incremental budget decreases more frequently than subfunctions that reflect greater neoliberal values. To test this theory, annual appropriations data for 64 subfunctions was collected, resulting in a database of budget outcomes from 1977 to 2018. Preliminary multivariate regression models suggest that while a subfunction’s “neoliberalness” has some effect on the magnitude of budget cuts, specific subfunctions can experience budget patterns that are not explained by neoliberalism alone. This research adds to existing policy literature by exploring the intricacies of budget-making that have previously been dismissed as chaos.

The United States military is a massive proponent for airstrikes and utilizes them in place of ground forces. Although people expect airstrikes to increase precision and reduce civilian casualties, military conflicts continue to last for years. Nevertheless, the United States continues to rely on airstrikes as a principle strategy despite prolonged military conflicts. It is puzzling why the United States would transform military strategy to include a heavy reliance on airstrikes despite few indicators showing its success as a strategy. This research paper examines whether U.S. airstrikes reduce the magnitude- or the total civilian casualties- resulting from military conflicts. I expect to find that airstrikes increase civilian casualties and theorize that the use of these strikes is more for domestic favorability than any military benefit. I explore this expectation by using multiple regression analyses on wartime data from the Iraq War and the Syrian Conflict. I analyze the United States' use of ground forces during the Iraq War and its use of airstrikes during the Syrian Conflict, all while controlling for other actors and forces within these conflicts. This analysis provides insight into the capabilities of drone strikes as a means of ending conflict. 

Unionization has been proven to give significant benefits for workers, specifically in terms of wages and employee benefits. However, in spite of these benefits, unionization has been on the decline in the United States since the 1960s. One of the main reasons for this decline is right-to-work (RTW) laws, which allow employees to opt out of paying union dues that contribute to the cost of union representation. This poses an interesting puzzle: why are RTW laws enacted in the United States, in spite of the negative economic effects towards workers? My research attempts to examine the relationship between a state’s ‘economy’ and RTW laws. I theorize that RTW laws, while hurting employees, provide a significant incentive to firms who are looking to relocate. Therefore, states with a lower gross state product (GSP) may be incentivized to institute a RTW law. I first look at GSP per capita to identify if there are cases where GSP stagnated, and then a RTW law was enacted. I then analyze the 8 most recent cases of RTW laws, using state data from 1965 to 2019 to look at the impacts of RTW laws on GSP, employment, median household income, and unionization. This is done using a multivariate regression analysis, to test the correlation between the passing of the RTW law and my dependent variables. Ultimately, this study hopes to both build on the existing body of evidence that asserts a negative relationship between both RTW states and unionization, and research additional effects of RTW laws beyond unionization by focusing on state economic development, and incentives around proposing a RTW law. 

The dominant perspective within school governance scholarship is Iacconne and Lutz’s Dissatisfaction Theory, which posits that local school politics are democratic because representatives elected by the public. If a constituency is sufficiently dissatisfied with its elected officials, incumbent board members will be voted out, inducing administrative change in the district. Within this framework, most scholars have focused on the institutional response to incumbent defeat, with topics like superintendent turnover and policy reform. This study places theoretical emphasis upon the community as the foundation of democratic self-government and investigates underlying socioeconomic conditions which induce citizens to vote out their representatives. It is hypothesized that civic engagement affects the causal linkage between dissatisfaction and incumbent defeat as posited by Dissatisfaction Theory. This is tested by a multiple regression model, which incorporates 141 school districts using ACS and newspaper data. If this hypothesis holds, then a positive correlation between civic engagement and democratic outcomes is established. The underlying insight being that civic culture is an essential consideration for local democratic governance.

Why do some American social movements enjoy Congressional attention while others do not? By contextualizing this question in existing social movement and policy elite preferences theory, this paper proposes a novel theory identifying social movement threat as a key causal mechanism underlying recognition from Congress. To operationalize this, “social movement threat” was measured by analyzing the size, frequency, and violence of protests organized under a corresponding social movement in a given year, while “Congressional attention” was measured by the amount of proposed legislation addressing a corresponding social movement in a given year. The project focuses on the actions of formal social movement organizations as a unit of analysis and hypothesizes that a continuous trend of threatening protest tactics is key to sparking Congressional attention. Preliminary multivariate regression analysis of three distinct social movements and over 300 protests in the 20th century indicates that more threatening social movements may have garnered greater Congressional attention in the form of proposed bills but did not necessarily enjoy a significantly higher amount of passed laws. Further, while Congressional attention did not increase with movement threat, it does appear that it increased over the lifespan of a social movement. The implication of these preliminary findings is that protests do little to influence Congressional decision-making, but that some other characteristic of an ongoing social movement may spark increased Congressional attention.

The Covid-19 pandemic has affected nearly every facet of life, most alarmingly that of food security. Scholars suggests that food security is one of the most important indicators of physical and financial wellbeing. Many governmental policies, both on the federal and state level, have been passed in order to alleviate some of the building pressure. Grassroot organizations, particularly food pantries, have also stepped up in order to meet the increased demand for food security. My study examines the success rate of various food pantries across Washington State in their addressing of local food insecurities. “Success” is measured by how many households each food bank served. In order to collect this data, I individually contacted food banks across Washington State requesting them for the number of households that their pantries served between January and August of 2020. As food pantries are community-based organizations, this study will specifically examine whether food pantry success has been influenced by community population size. A multivariate regression model is employed in order to examine whether locality population size (primarily measured by ZIP code) has a statistically significant relationship with the number of households served, controlling for other variables. It is expected that lower population size will lead to higher rates of food bank success because (1) smaller communities have stronger collective identities and (2) local information is more accessible in smaller communities. If the regression fails to reject the null hypothesis, the implications of this study would be that food bank operators may benefit their communities more by starting multiple smaller local food banks rather than upgrading existing ones. These findings may also be applicable to other grass-roots non-profit organizations wishing to expand their reach.

In the process of uniting Europe, European integration has inadvertently strengthened secessionist movements that seek to fracture the very states it has brought together. Through the creation of the European Single Market, the common travel area, the single currency, and the establishment of the four freedoms of movement for goods, capital, services, and people, many of the benefits a region with a potential desire for independence gains from remaining a part of its host state are transferred to the European level. Currently, nearly all academic analysis of European integration and its impact on secessionist movements has been published around the time of the 2014 Scottish independence referendum and before the UK’s 2016 European Union membership referendum. The current academic consensus argues that European integration has harmed secessionist movements more than it has helped, but in the years since the UKs decision to leave the EU, this argument has become outdated and no longer holds the strength it once did. I conducted a review and analysis of current academic literature on the topic along with statements from current and former European politicians and separatist political parties to explore and compare the cases of secessionist movements in Scotland, Catalonia, and Flanders. My analysis incorporates the events since the UK’s Brexit referendum currently left out of academic literature published to date. I hypothesize that an updated review of European integration’s effect on secessionist movements will show that integration has helped secessionist movements and their arguments. While these cases were chosen for their strength and their diversity in circumstances, these independence movements are united in being transformed from pipedreams to real possibilities thanks to European integration.

International treaties provide citizens with guaranteed human rights and hold countries to a higher standard of accountability. Through monitoring mechanisms, international organizations can track both the effectiveness and implementation of rights outlined in their treaties. However, this process of human rights protection can be convoluted when involving countries with a rich history of authoritarianism. In this research project, I assess the United Nations Committee Against Torture (CAT), to understand its effectiveness in implementing the Convention Against Torture in the Middle East. The project examines the six Middle Eastern countries that ratified the treaty and evaluates their success in circumventing the violence that it prohibits. To measure this, I have developed an original jurisprudence dataset ranging from 1994 to 2019 that includes all claims brought against Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Mauritania. Jurisprudence is broadly defined as the study of law but in this particular instance is the examination of case law. In a historical case law analysis, I code for whether the committee ruled in favor or against a violation to the treaty, participating advocacy groups, and the issue areas most prevalent. Additionally, I analyze annual reports documenting the personal accounts of Middle Eastern countries perceived efficacy in adhering to the treaty. Preliminary findings suggest that the Convention Against Torture is effective on the ground when there is a prominent culture of advocacy present to counteract the durable authoritarian setting it falls beneath. These findings may assist in answering larger questions about the impact of international treaties in safeguarding human rights and holding countries accountable. Importantly, these monitoring mechanisms may progressively inhibit authoritarian regimes from actively denying citizens their guaranteed human rights.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is responsible for prosecuting the most heinous of crimes, that of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression. An institution with potentially universal jurisdiction, it was created to promote rule of law globally, not beholden to any one nation and unbiased in its pursuit of justice. However, allegations of an anti-African bias have been made against the ICC by the African Union and others. Is there an inherent bias against Africa or is the ICC merely fulfilling its duties as designed? This research investigates charges of bias through close examination of the ICC’s structure, case history, and the court’s relationship to the United Nation Security Council (UNSC). To fully answer the question of bias, I created a case law dataset cataloging all ICC investigations and cases from its first in 2002 to the present. I have coded each case and investigation according to charges, which referral mechanism triggered ICC jurisdiction, and the current status of the case. Preliminary results indicate a clear focus on Africa by the Court, however, each prosecuted case falls squarely within the jurisdiction entrusted to the Court. While a discernible bias may not be present, the relationship between the ICC and the UNSC does raise questions about impartiality and global separation of power. Future research on possible remedies to charges of impartiality may benefit the legitimacy of the ICC, as well as the Court’s efforts towards international justice.

International human rights law governs and safegaurds individual citizens with the intention of protecting  basic rights, liberties, and freedoms. These international laws are upheld through international courts who act to ensure member state compliance. Acceptance of international court authority and rulings is slow in many transitioning democracies. Yet increasingly, international court decisions are shaping domestic rights protection and the rule of law. In this project, I examine the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR), an international court governing the Americas, and their case law involving Guatemala to understand how international courts develop and protect human rights. In my analysis, I construct an original dataset that codes all IACHR judgements involving Guatemala between 1996-2020. In particular, the dataset focuses on cases in the area of indigenous rights, children's rights, and the right to liberty, identifying if a violation is found and how this expands human rights protection. Preliminary findings suggest the court has slowly expanded rights in these areas of law, which has led to some strengthening of the domestic legal system. This study illustrates the power of international courts to protect fundamental individual rights, however, it calls for further research exploring the potential limitations of this power in the context of transitioning societies. 

Authoritarian regimes may construct courts to engage in administrative discipline and bolster executive legitimacy. Yet in China, citizens are also increasingly utilizing courts to contest the decisions of local government officials. Litigation is at once a tool of control by the state, but may also suggest an avenue for citizenry power against the state in an otherwise constrained society. In this project, I examine administrative law cases brought to the Supreme People’s Court of China (SPC) to analyze how administrative litigation processes are used to empower citizens or to discipline state bureaucrats. To answer these questions, I developed an original case law dataset of SPC administrative law judgments between the period of 2014 to 2019. Through case law analysis I coded each decision for key identifiers including the districts in which litigation was filed, the type of plaintiff, the issue in dispute, and compensation given by the government. Preliminary findings suggest that administrative litigation is disproportionately in the area of property rights and is most frequently utilized by corporations rather than citizens or public interest bureaus. The patterns hold across a diverse set of localities throughout China with plaintiffs winning in nearly half of the cases in this dataset. These findings bring into question whether courts in authoritarian regimes are merely a pawn of executive power, and instead suggest an avenue for individual and corporate claims making against the administrative state.

The Netherlands and the neighborhood of Meadowbrook in Seattle, Washington are increasingly being threatened by flooding as climate change is causing record-breaking floods to become the new normal. In response to this phenomenon, these communities are adopting nature-based flood adaptation measures, an approach to managing floods which works by utilizing natural flood preventions such as wetlands, coral reefs, and urban green spaces. For my research I focused on the similarities and dissimilarities of nature-based flood adaptation approaches in the Netherlands and in the Meadowbrook neighborhood. More specifically I examined the physical types of nature-based flood adaptations put into place and the policies surrounding their implementation. I found both areas employed similar physical adaptations, mainly the expansion of natural wetlands in riverine environments. As a result, both areas experienced immense success with the effectiveness of the adaptations as riverine flooding greatly decreased. As for flood policies, the results I found greatly differed. The Netherlands have pioneered a mind-set that focuses on living with the water, rather than struggling to defeat it. This has allowed the Dutch to look beyond “gray” infrastructure flood control and embrace adaptations that provide more resilience and sustainability, such as nature-based flood adaptations. Meanwhile, the adaptations within Meadowbrook are not indicative of the U.S. as a whole, as a heavy reliance on “gray” infrastructure and a denial of flooding problems prevails. These results help substantiate the efficacy of nature-based flood adaptations and points to an inadequacy within the way the U.S. approaches flooding issues.

U.S. agriculture is impacted by and a contributor towards climate change, necessitating an investigation into the policies—or lack of— that govern its operations; I have decided to explore this topic by comparing the policies on adaptive and mitigative strategies in California versus Iowa, since they are both heavily involved in the U.S. agricultural system and experience vastly different consequences of climate change. There are several questions that I am looking at to guide my research, including, are there any significant state level policies in place, and if not, why? If there are policies in place, are they sufficient in effectively dealing with climate change? Do their responses or lack thereof reflect each state’s overall attitude towards climate change? What do the findings say about the political ability to foster adaptive agriculture in the U.S.? Should there be more federal policies if there is little action from the states? To evaluate these questions in my research, I look at the similarities and differences of these two states' policies through water management, soil management, and crop diversification. Due to the differing severity and tangibility of climate change effects on these two states, as well as contrasting levels of public support and ability to pass other climate change related policies, I predict that California will have more significant policy in place than Iowa. Since Iowa is representative of the agriculturally rich Midwest and California's large agricultural sector deals with severe impacts from climate change, my findings will help us understand whether or not U.S. states have implemented sufficient agricultural policies in relation to climate change.

The influence of traditional economic thinking and theory on the development of international commerce and trade policy informs many of the contemporary issues and challenges impacting the global economy today. My research paper addresses the economic and social ramifications of global free trade practices and analyzes an alternative paradigm designed to affect free trade market behavior known as fair trade. Whereas free trade is characterized by the importing and exporting of goods between countries without tariffs or restrictions, fair trade is identifiable based on practices and principles that promote empowerment and equity. My analysis posits fair trade as a policy prescription for some of the deleterious effects of free trade. To compare traditional market-driven approaches to global trade with the contemporary movement of fair trade, my analysis is guided by a series of prompts: What is fair trade’s role in the international political economy sphere and how does it differ from (and complement) free trade? How can the precepts and practices of fair trade counterbalance the inequities of free trade policies? Scholarly resources, including peer-reviewed academic journals, were utilized to develop perspectives and answer these questions. Fair trade practices offer a sustainable improvement for the human condition since they are driven by more meaningful indicators of welfare than just Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Fair trade policies identify and value the needs and well-being of growers, workers, and communities along with the priorities of the developing nation trading partner; free trade focuses mainly on aggregate components that promote efficiency and create market value for the global economy. Social and environmental improvements from fair trade may not be adequately quantified in GDP since they can occur outside of traditional, measurable market-based activity. Therefore, this deficiency could motivate the development of an alternative to GDP to more accurately measure the non-pecuniary welfare effects from global trade.

The COVID-19 pandemic has devastated millions of American lives; yet, despite the collective suffering experienced across the board, individual responses to the pandemic have been plagued by the extreme polarization that has defined the last few decades of American politics. This paper explores the origins and key drivers of this polarization. Specifically, I examine the relationship between elite messaging and how Americans perceive the coronavirus pandemic by comparing changes in public opinion data regarding concern about COVID-19 to the ways in which political elites have discussed the pandemic. To conduct this study, I create a categorical “Elite Concern Index” comparing the concern and sentiments expressed by political elites of both primary parties through eight personal Twitter accounts and the official statements of the Democratic and Republican parties. I conduct a multivariate regression analysis to determine the relationship between my Elite Concern Index and public opinion about COVID-19 in order to assess whether elite messaging may have an influence upon the public’s perception of COVID-19. I expect to find a positive relationship between the concern expressed by political elites and the concern expressed by the public, which would suggest that political elites emphasizing the threat of COVID-19 can increase public concern regarding the virus. Understanding what is causing the polarization around COVID-19 can help us learn how to fight back against it and rally Americans to take the threat seriously, as a unified response is the best way to both defeat the virus and minimize its human impact.

Graffiti acts are aggressively criminalized in most American cities, with writers subject to hefty fines and jail time among an array of other punishments. Even the most progressive cities have implemented zero-tolerance approaches to graffiti. To justify their hardline positions, many cities employ rhetoric evocative of the Broken Windows Theory, citing graffiti’s threat to public safety and negative impact on property values. In this study, I assess the punitiveness of forty-three American cities’ graffiti laws. I theorize that municipalities are driven to adopt punitive anti-graffiti laws because of constituent concern about crime and deteriorating property values, purported outcomes of the Broken Windows Theory. To test my hypotheses, this study will employ multivariate regression models to test each hypothesis while controlling for other factors. I expect to find that cities with more punitive graffiti laws will have higher rates of crime perception among its residents and will face worsening property values to a greater extent than cities with less punitive graffiti laws. Ultimately, revealing the motivations driving municipal authorities to adopt punitive laws for non-violent crimes like graffiti helps illuminate what societal values they are invested in maintaining.

Sikhism is one of the largest religions in the world. The followers of the religion, Sikhs, have stretched beyond the borders of Punjab, India, and into countries like the United States. However, oftentimes they are greeted with bigotry and racism, especially in the workforce, largely due to the 'non-Anglo' physical characteristics of their religion. Since their migration, Sikhs have been fighting for equal employment protection under the law, sadly with little success in the U.S. courts. The purpose of this study is to understand how the U.S. Supreme Court has impeded the workplace rights of Sikh Americans. I examine the Court's judicial opinions on religion-based employment discrimination cases and scrutinize applicable legal journals to deduce how Title VII protections have been redefined and manipulated to corner Sikh Americans into abandoning the physical tenants of their religion or face the risk of losing their livelihoods. I also evaluate the rhetoric in these judicial opinions to hypothesize how the social and political environment at the time influenced the Court's ruling in an attempt to create solutions on how to fairly assist Sikh Americans and other religious minorities in legal cases.