Finland and the United States, 1917-1919 : early years of mutual relations

Doctoral dissertation, University of Helsinki

The Middle East in the American quest for world order : ideas of power, economics, and social development in United States foreign policy, 1953-1961

Doctoral dissertation, University of Tampere

Small-scale non-industrial private forest ownership in the United States : rationale and implications for forest management

Abstract

Hezbollah and Taliban - hybrid adversaries in contemporary conflicts? : views on an adversary from the United States Armed Forces perspective

The experiences of the United States Armed Forces of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel Defense Forces in the Second Lebanon War resulted a new term to surface called “hybrid warfare”. It was to describe the complexity of today’s battlefield. The term “hy-brid warfare” was never officially defined nor is it today. The updated version of the US ARMY Field Manual 3-0: Operations (Change 1) from February 22, 2011, introduced and defined “hybrid threat” and thus opened the discussion for hybrid adversary. In this thesis a model is introduced according to which any organization, group or an ad-versary can be examined and evaluated to see whether it qualifies as a hybrid adversary. It is demonstrated by the example of Hezbollah, which is recognized as the best example of an organization utilizing “hybrid warfare” and subsequently categorizing as a hybrid adver-sary. The model will be tested with Afghan Taliban to see whether both the model works and Taliban qualifies as a hybrid adversary or not. According to the model used in this thesis, it is concluded that Taliban does not meet the standards of a hybrid adversary, but with acquisition of standoff weapons it would quickly qualify as one. The model proved to work, and it could be used as a tool by intelligence of-ficers for estimating the threat levels of any group or identifying those groups that are al-ready or are about to develop into a hybrid adversary.

Map of the United States and territories showing the extent of public surveys and military reservations, land grant R.R., rail roads, canals, and other details ...

Kartta kuuluu A. E. Nordenskiöldin kokoelmaan

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and Agroecology in Agricultural Production in the United States - A Comparative Analysis.

The world’s population is growing at a rapid rate and one of the primary problems of a growing is food supply. To ensure food supply and security, the biggest companies in the agricultural sector of the United States and all over the world have collaborated to produce genetically modified organisms, including crops, that have a tendency to increase yields and are speculated to reduce pesticide use. It’s a technology that is declared to have a multitude of benefits. During the same time period another set of practices has risen to the horizon by the name of agroecology. It spreads across many different sectors such as politics, sociology, environment, health and so on. Moreover, it involves primitive organic techniques that can be applied at farm level to enhance the performance of an ecosystem to effectively decrease the negative effect on environment and health of individuals while producing good quality foods. Since both the processes proclaim sustainable development, a natural question may come in mind that which one seems more favorable? During the course of this study, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and agroecology are compared within the sphere of social, environmental and health aspects. The results derived upon a comparative analysis of scientific literature tend to prove that GMOs pose a greater threat to the environment, health of individuals and the generalized social balance in the United States compared to agroecological practices. Economic indicators were not included in the study and more studies might be needed in the future to get a broader view on the subject.

Collective redundancies in the State of California of the United States and in the Republic of Finland. Procedures and Provisions

Video games industry has recently bonded California and Finland in a new way and where the employers are recruiting they also need to be aware of the provisions and procedures related to terminations. In general, collective dismissals are on a relatively high level both in Finland and in California. In California, collective redundancies are regulated under the WARN law. The WARN obligates employers with 75 or more employees to give a 60-day notice prior to a mass lay off and some other similar events. Employers with less than 75 employees are free to administer the terminations without the WARN notice period. Generally, the California at-will presumption allows employment relationship to be terminated any day with or without reason and without notice period if conditions of collective agreements or employment contract do not limit this right. Termination cannot anyhow be in violation of the anti-discrimination law. In Finland the termination related provisions are part of the Employment Contracts Act and the Act on Co-operation within Undertakings. Collective redundancies are allowed under financial and production related grounds. Small employers with less than 20 employees follow the termination provisions of the Employment Contracts Act and are obligated to inform the employee to be terminated on the details of the termination itself and also the services of the Employment and Economic Development Office. Employers with 20 or more employees are to initiate co-operation procedure under the Act on Co-operation within Undertakings when reducing personnel. The co- operation negotiations are to inform employees on the employer’s plans and financial situation as well as to involve them in the decision making regarding the terminations. The employer’s duty to inform the employees of the services of Employment and Economic Development Office needs to be fulfilled also in terminations under the co-operation procedure. Discrimination is prohibited in Finland in terminations of employment. As an alternative for terminations, employees can for example be transferred to another position or be temporarily laid off. Employer’s duties related to search of alternatives for layoff are broader in Finland than in California. The recent development of the labor laws in Finland and in California suggests that the labor law is not static in either one of these environments but changes can be expected as the needs of the business life so require.