Show simple item record

dc.rights.licenseCC-BY-NC-ND
dc.contributor.advisorGould, Lauren
dc.contributor.authorAçikgöz, Cemre
dc.date.accessioned2023-09-22T23:00:56Z
dc.date.available2023-09-22T23:00:56Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.identifier.urihttps://studenttheses.uu.nl/handle/20.500.12932/45214
dc.description.abstractRemoteness has become a characteristic feature of warfare where states keep a safe distance by conducting operations from the air by using remote warfare weapons and operations from the ground by providing security force assistance to local security forces. Operation Inherent Resolve is a prime example of a remote warfare campaign where 80+ states are part of the US-led Anti-ISIS Coalition. Nevertheless, remote warfare operations have caused both direct and indirect civilian harm. This thesis studies how the US and Dutch governments discursively respond to the claims made by civil society about direct and indirect civilian harm caused by local security partners during Operation Inherent Resolve from 2014 until 2021. A critical discursive approach will be used to analyze two case studies of Operation Inherent Resolve: The United States and the collaboration with the Syrian Democratic Forces, and the Non-Lethal Assistance program of the Netherlands. By studying to what extent these two governments use epistemic politics when responding to claims of civilian harm caused by their partnerships with local security forces, this thesis provides a broader look at critical discourse analysis, where there is also a focus on what is not being said. Collecting data through public governmental sources, reports by human rights organizations, and public media sources, this thesis concludes that the United States and the Netherlands both use epistemic politics as a dominant discursive strategy when responding to claims of civilian harm caused by their partnerships with local security forces. Therefore, this thesis shows that it is important to not only analyze discursive strategies where words are being used but also to analyze discursive strategies where not much is being said at all when governments want to maintain power over the ‘truth’ that they have claimed.
dc.description.sponsorshipUtrecht University
dc.language.isoEN
dc.subjectThis thesis studies how the US and Dutch governments discursively respond to the claims made by civil society about direct and indirect civilian harm caused by local security partners during Operation Inherent Resolve from 2014 until 2021. Based on two case studies, this thesis concludes that the United States and the Netherlands both use epistemic politics as a dominant discursive strategy when responding to claims of civilian harm caused by their partnerships with local security forces.
dc.titleRemote Warfare and Epistemic Politics: The discursive response of the US and the Netherlands to claims of civilian harm caused by partnerships with local security forces
dc.type.contentMaster Thesis
dc.rights.accessrightsOpen Access
dc.subject.keywordsCivilian harm; critical discursive approach; epistemic politics; local security forces; Operation Inherent Resolve; remote warfare; the Netherlands; the US
dc.subject.courseuuConflict Studies and Human Rights
dc.thesis.id24666


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record