No description available.

No description available.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:25:36Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Sergio Silveira Banhos.pdf: 574605 bytes, checksum: c823ec8263dc0871b145aab9b6306412 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2007-06-05 / This thesis addresses the recent doctrinal and jurisprudential tendency observed in the law in the context of hypermodernity, which indicates an effective reduction in the use of discretionality in administrative acts as a result of the integrated ap-plication of principles and rules. The traditional legalistic approach is currently giv-ing way to a more wide-ranging view, exemplified in Ronald Dworkin s theory of law as integrity through which not only rules, but also principles themselves, should be subjected to a systemic, integrated analysis. Given this, Dworkin s work forms the theoretical platform for the questions raised by this entire study, since the integrated application of principles and rules has become fundamental in the pursuit of the ideal of justice, bringing a new focus on the role of administrative law in an environment of deep and rapid change that typifies hypermodernity. Consid-ering the new concept of the separation of powers, the notion of strict legality, by presupposing a means of controlling the exercise of State power, must be set against other constitutional principles of equal importance, taking into account the particularities of each case in question. In this context, the traditional concept of discretionality is outmoded. Jurisdictive control of these acts is not only possible, but also absolutely essential in a democratic state of law. The synthesis of this new paradigm for administrative law is clear and should be an indissoluble part of administators agenda in contemporary society: citizens are the effective benefici-aries of constitutional rights and guarantees. The technique of balancing principles by assessing their values in the particular case is already part of the jurisprudence of hypermodernity, which is in synchrony with neopositivism and the theory of law as integrity / Esta dissertação demonstra a recente tendência doutrinária e jurisprudencial ob-servada no Direito da hipermodernidade, que indica efetiva diminuição da parcela de discricionariedade nos atos da Administração Pública, a partir da aplicação in-tegrada de princípios e regras. Da tradicional abordagem puramente legalista passa-se atualmente para uma visão mais abrangente na teoria do Direito como Integridade, de RONALD DWORKIN, mediante a qual não só normas, mas também princípios, devem ser analisados de maneira sistêmica, integrada. Dado isso, a obra de DWORKIN é a base teórica de apoio às questões instigadas por todo este estudo, porque a aplicação integrada de princípios e regras se tornou essencial à busca do ideal de justiça, trazendo novo enfoque quanto ao papel do Direito Ad-ministrativo nesta ambiência de profundas e rápidas transformações típicas da hi-permodernidade. Considerada a nova concepção da separação dos poderes, o princípio da legalidade estrita, por encerrar uma fórmula de contenção do exercí-cio do poder estatal, deve ser contraposto a outros princípios constitucionais de igual relevo, observado o caso concreto. A acepção clássica da discricionarieda-de, assim, encontra-se de vez superada. O controle jurisdicional desses atos não é só possível, mas imprescindível num Estado Democrático de Direito. A síntese desse novo paradigma para o Direito Administrativo é clara e deve pautar a agen-da dos administradores na contemporaneidade: os administrados são os efetivos destinatários dos direitos e das garantias constitucionais. A técnica de pondera-ção dos princípios contrapondo valores nos casos considerados já faz parte da realidade da jurisprudência da hipermodernidade, que se encontra sintonizada com o neopositivismo e com a teoria do Direito como Integridade

Following the 1959 victory of the Cuban revolution, the United States government along with the CIA and their Cuban émigré allies immediately undertook a campaign of subversion and terrorism against the Cuban revolution. From 1959 until 1963 a clandestine war was waged between supporters of the revolution and the counter-revolutionary organizations backed by Washington. This project is a new synthesis of this little-known story. It is an attempt to shed light on a little known aspect of the conflict between the United States government and the Cuban revolution by bringing together never-before seen primary sources, and utilizing the two distinct and separate historiographies from the U.S. and Cuba, concerning the clandestine struggle. This is the story of Cuba’s resistance to intervention, the organization of the counter- revolution, and finally how the constant defeat of CIA plots by the Cubans forced changes in U.S. strategy concerning intervention in Cuba and in other parts of the developing world that would have far-reaching and long-last effects.

The paper deals with the use of unmanned aircraft of the American national security policy. It examines the history of unmanned aviation, its military use, and cost- efficiency. It then examines the main obstacles and problems with their use in national security that this technology meets and will meet in the future after a higher level of autonomy is developed. These problems involve legal issues, international and domestic American law, the issue of civilian casualties, the role of the media, and public opinion. The final chapter focuses on the problems of technical, strategic and operational issues. In this section the research paper comes to the first conclusion which claims that the introduction of more autonomous systems to war will radically change its structure and, consequently, standard procedures and strategies. Case studies are included to illustrate how successful the drone strategy is applied in the five countries where the United States leads a war on terror. The research using the theory of the revolution in military affairs concludes that these UAVs pose the greatest challenge in history and it goes well beyond military matters. UAVs in national security affect the understanding of the basic principles of war in relation to the concepts of warrior ethos and just war.

This study explores the foundations of US counterinsurgency policy and doctrine in order to better understand the main historical influences on that policy and doctrine and how those influences have informed the current US approach to counterinsurgency. The results of this study indicate the US experience in counterinsurgency during the Greek Civil War and the Huk Rebellion in the Philippines had a significant influence on the development of US counterinsurgency policy and doctrine following World War II through the Kennedy presidency. In addition, despite a major diversion from the lessons of Greece and the Philippines during the Vietnam War, the lessons were re-institutionalized in US counterinsurgency policy and doctrine following the war and continue to have significant influence today, though in a highly sanitized and, therefore, misleading form. As a result, a major disconnect has developed between the “rhetoric and reality” of US counterinsurgency policy. This disconnect has resulted from the fact that many references that provide a more complete and accurate picture of the actual policies and actions taken to successfully defeat the insurgencies have remained out of the reach of non-government researchers and the general public. Accordingly, many subsequent studies of counterinsurgency overlook, or only provide a cursory treatment of, aspects that may have had a critical impact on the success of past US counterinsurgency operations. One such aspect is the role of US direct intervention in the internal affairs of a supported country. Another is the role of covert action operations in support of counterinsurgency operations. As a result, the counterinsurgency policies and doctrines that have been developed over the years are largely based on false assumptions, a flawed understanding of the facts, and a misunderstanding of the contexts concerning the cases because of misleading, or at least seriously incomplete, portrayals of the counterinsurgency operations.

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.