| This dissertation examines changes in Estonia's nationality policy over the period 1988--1999, and the role of the United Nations, the Council of Europe, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in inducing these changes. With the exception of one fundamental alteration in 1998, the changes that Estonia made in response to multilateral pressure did not go to the heart of the laws but were marginal in character.; The theoretical framework that explains this case is a dichotomy between neorealist motivations and institutionalist means. Estonia's motivation for altering its laws was to win support among key Western democratic states for Estonia's security aims, including the withdrawal of Russian troops and membership in the EU and NATO. International organizations were the instruments of change because these same key states chose to use multilateral means for pressuring Estonia. The changes were made not because of the efficacy of the organizations themselves; Estonia's broader security concerns largely fell outside the purview of those institutions that were engaged. Instead, Estonian lawmakers and officials used the norm of civilization as an instrument to justify and rationalize the concessions at home and to project a cooperative image abroad in order to win friends in the West. Norms theory complements the neorealist/institutionalist dichotomy that explains the changes.; I test my argument by examining nationality policy laws and the politics behind passage of those laws from 1988--1999, which I divide into three time periods (1988 to 1992; 1992 to 1994; and 1994 to 1999). For each of the three periods, I focus on three elements: the laws themselves, relevant developments in the three international organizations, and the broader European security context, especially Estonian-Russian relations and Tallinn's pursuit of membership in the EU and NATO.; This study contributes to the discussion between institutionalists and neorealists over the role of international organizations in promoting cooperation. Here, institutions matter, but not in the way neoliberals predict. The study also contributes to the emergent constructivist paradigm, and reinforces the view that norms theory can complement more traditional explanations from international relations theory. |
