Guantánamo ist zum Symbol des Aufeinandertreffens verschiedener Wertesysteme geworden, bei dem die Frage nach den Rechten des Menschen im Mittelpunkt steht. In der Dissertation werden die komplexen Probleme dargestellt, mit denen das Völkerrecht durch die Herausforderungen des internationalen Terrorismus und speziell des Gefangenenlagers auf Kuba konfrontiert wird. Darüber hinaus wird die Frage untersucht, welche Rechte des Menschen fern der diplomatisch verhandelten internationalen Kodifikationen tatsächlich in den verschiedenen Kulturen der Welt anerkannt und gelebt werden. Zwar legen der Wortlaut und die Verbreitung der Menschenrechtsverträge die Vermutung nahe, dass in den Kulturen der Welt ein Konsens über die Rechte des Menschen zumindest im Kern existiert. Bei näherer Betrachtung zeigt sich aber, dass es verschiedene Menschenbilder - etwa freiheitlich-individualistische, kommunalistische und theozentrische - gibt, die zum Teil diametral zueinander stehen. Ein interkultureller Vergleich offenbart, dass häufig das jeweils andere Wertesystem abgewehrt und auch „die universellen Menschenrechte“ als westlich determinierte Werte mit Distanz betrachtet werden. Welche Begründungen für Menschenrechte in den Kulturen existent sind, welche Aufschlüsse die bisherigen Begründungsmodelle geben und inwieweit daraus ein Kern an Rechten dem Menschen überkulturell als angeboren begründet werden können, sind wichtige Fragen, die in dieser Dissertation behandelt werden. Es werden neue Ansätze untersucht, welche die Begründungsdefizite bisheriger Modelle womöglich auflösen und den rechtlichen Diskurs damit aktualisieren können. Denn kontroverse Menschenrechtslagen, wie die in Guantánamo, sind in Zukunft nur vermeidbar, wenn sich auf der Basis eines fortgeführten interkulturellen Dialoges eine gemeinsame Identität entwickelt und dadurch eine Gewalt zwischen den Kulturen verringert wird, die durch die Differenzen ihrer Werte entsteht. / Guantánamo has become a symbol for the clash of differing value systems. With widespread international concern and criticism of the treatment of the detainees - Islamic terror suspects - as grave violations of universal human rights. The dissertation illustrates the complex problems confronting international law by the aspects of international terrorism and especially the prison camp on Cuba. Furthermore, it examines the question, which rights beyond the international codifications are actually accepted within the cultures. The wording of the international human rights treaties and their dissemination assume a consensus on basic human rights. However differing and sometimes opposing cultural and religious conceptions exist. Some communities attach importance to a liberal and individual understanding, whilst others on the involvement and obligation of the individual into the community. Making it difficult to define and implement core human rights treaties, which can be applied universally regardless of cultural and religious beliefs. Therefore, the examination goes further than an analysis by means of international law. It discusses the question, which justifications of human rights are existing within the cultures, what the contents of the present paradigms of justification - to which also the international human rights refer - are, and how an inherence of a core of human rights can be derived beyond cultural relativity. Rights that would consider equal conditions of human interaction, and examine the correlation of identity, structural violence and the state of need of the human being. The actualization of the justification of human rights is vital in the legal discourse to assimilate the conceptions about the rights of man. Controversial human rights situations like Guantánamo can only be resolved and avoided in the future, with continued intercultural dialogue, understanding of a common human identity, and celebration instead of condemnation of the inherent richness of differing cultural and religious values.

The following dissertation develops a theoretical framework for guiding the strategy of democratic states in successfully countering the hostilities of nationalistic substate terrorist organizations (NSTOs), and effectively manipulating the terrorist group’s (and its supporting elements’) decision-making calculus. In particular, the theory of strategic coercion has been chosen as a basis for formulating this framework, based upon: 1) the invaluable guidance it offers in dynamically drawing upon all instruments of national power—economic, diplomatic, military, etc.—to accomplish politico-strategic objectives; and 2) the unique insights it provides into making strategic moves aimed at influencing the choices taken by an adversary. However, strategic coercion theory as it currently stands is inadequate for applications against substate terrorist organizations. As a quintessential cornerstone for prescriptive policy in strategic studies, such a looming deficiency vis-à-vis one the most important security threats of the modern age is unacceptable. The new theoretical framework established in this dissertation—entitled the Balance Theory of strategic coercion—addresses this deficiency. The Balance Theory stresses that three key coercive elements of strategic coercion are fundamentally important for successfully ending the hostilities posed by NSTOs, being: A) Isolation of external/international support; B) Denial; and C) Isolation of popular support. It posits that these three aspects of strategic coercion serve as the sine qua non for success in countering an NSTO’s campaign of violence and effectively manipulating its decision-making process. Implementation of these three elements, moreover, must be pursued in tandem, taking care so as not to sacrifice one aspect for the other. The Balance Theory is tested through the employment of case-study analysis. In pursuing this end, both cross-case and within-case analyses are performed, accompanied by the utilization of the methods of focused, structured comparison. The cases examined are those of: 1) The United Kingdom versus Republican NSTOs (1969-2007); and 2) Israel versus Palestinian NSTOs (1967-present). The dissertation concludes with an examination of how the Balance Theory may provide insights for the formulation of counter-terrorism strategy against Al Qaeda in the current "War on Terror".

Imagine a world where someone’s personal information is constantly compromised, where federal government entities AKA Big Brother always knows what anyone is Googling, who an individual is texting, and their emoticons on Twitter. Government entities have been doing this for years; they never cared if they were breaking the law or their moral compass of human dignity. Every day the Federal government blatantly siphons data with programs from the original ECHELON to the new series like PRISM and Xkeyscore so they can keep their tabs on issues that are none of their business; namely, the personal lives of millions. Our allies are taking note; some are learning our bad habits, from Government Communications Headquarters’ (GCHQ) mass shadowing sharing plan to America’s Russian inspiration, SORM. Some countries are following the United States’ poster child pose of a Brave New World like order of global events. Others like Germany are showing their resolve in their disdain for the rise of tyranny. Soon, these new found surveillance troubles will test the resolve of the American Constitution and its nation’s strong love and tradition of liberty. Courts are currently at work to resolve how current concepts of liberty and privacy apply to the current conditions facing the privacy of society. It remains to be determined how liberty will be affected as well; liberty for the United States of America, for the European Union, the Russian Federation and for the people of the World in regards to the extent of privacy in today’s blurred privacy expectations.