Terrorism, as an act of war, has produced new challenges for states and their militaries in the modern era. A typical response for governments that face a terrorist threat is to reassess their institutional posture toward handling such assaults on their territorial sovereignty, to include a redefinition of the conditions under which their militaries may be used to defend and protect domestic interests. This study aims to determine the conditions under which and to what degree a civilian authority's restructuring of its counterterrorism policy alters civil-military relations within that state, specifically examining the institutional and constitutional constraints under which governments formulate their military's role in counterterrorism policy; the type of institutional arrangement that seems most conducive to a powerful military role in a state's counterterrorism policy; and an exploration of the expansion of military authority in response to terrorism in the United States, Israel, the United Kingdom, and Spain. I argue that democratic states will expand the role and responsibilities of their militaries into what were formerly civilian areas of responsibility as a key tool in the implementation of their counterterrorism policy when military authority is only loosely circumscribed by state constitutional and legislative documents; the military has a history of strong participation in the formulation (versus simply implementation) of a state's national security doctrine; and the military maintains an exalted role in national history and is viewed by the citizenry as a core institution of national identity, and the government is facing both high internal and external threat levels. This study is based on the assumption that institutional arrangements play a significant role in the policymaking process, employing the paradigm of Historical Institutionalism to explain how changes within institutions alter civil-military relations in the context of counterterrorism policy, and vice versa. / text

During the battles for East Prussia in the final year of the Second World War, the ruthless conduct of German troops resulted in vast material and personal damage. By focusing on the besieged ‘Festung Königsberg’ in the spring of 1945, this dissertation argues that the violence that transpired in Germany in 1945 can only be understood by devoting sustained attention to local actors and factors. By combining social history and military history approaches, the research restores agency to the German army, the Wehrmacht, as an active participant in the radicalisation of the German home front. This case study demonstrates that due to the fragmentation of Germany, the decisions and orders of Wehrmacht commanders had a disproportionately large impact at a local level. The radical nature of these decisions was the direct result of the commanders’ violent experiences during the preceding years, while the barbarised mindset of the rank-and-file encouraged the rigorous enforcement of military authority. The dissertation’s findings contribute to four themes within the historiography of the Second World War. First, it contributes to the recent debate surrounding the German Volksgemeinschaft by drawing attention to the limits of loyalty to the regime, and the actors and events that prompted this fidelity to shift. Secondly, by analysing a large number of unused archival sources, it provides the first in-depth urban history of everyday life in Königsberg during its 1945 siege. Thirdly, it challenges the conventional historiographical view in which fanatical Party officials were the main perpetrators of late-war violence by emphasising the significance of the Wehrmacht as a key actor. Even though large numbers of German troops operated in close proximity to German civilians, their conduct has hardly been considered as an explanation of the events of 1945. Lastly, this dissertation combines and transcends the different perspectives on German domestic and martial law, suggesting that the two were ever more closely intertwined as the war progressed, resulting in a shift of behavioural patterns. The focus on Königsberg and its immediate surroundings has allowed for a re-examination of late-war society, being the first to focus attention on the triadic relationship of Wehrmacht, Party, and civilian population.

本研究之目的係探討國家賠償法於軍事機關之運作，從公務員執行職務行使公權力致生損害之國家賠償責任（即人的責任）與公有公共設施設置或管理欠缺致生損害之國家賠償責任（即物的責任）之兩大主軸討論，並比較日本裁判所之判決與我國對類似案件相關爭點判斷之異同，據以建構軍事機關國家賠償責任之類型，減少可能發生國家賠償責任之爭議。 全文共分為五章：第一章為緒論，說明本研究之動機與目的、研究範圍與限制、研究架構與方法。第二章為國家賠償制度概述，就國家賠償責任之定義及類型、適用之限制、國家賠償責任制度之發展過程、國家賠償責任之理論、公務員責任與國家賠償責任之關係予以討論，藉以確立國家賠償責任認定之法理基礎；並探討日本國家賠償責任成立之案件與我國國賠法制之異同處，藉以參酌我國同類案件之分析與比較。第三章研析闡述特別權力關係之起源、內涵、變遷等，探討公務員、學生、受刑人、軍人在此關係下基本權利之限制與保護。第四章為軍事機關與國家賠償之分析，以第二章國家賠償制度之法理為基礎，彙整相關法令規範，配合相關之法院國家賠償案例，檢討軍事機關公權力行為致生國賠責任之法理與探討軍事設施設置、軍事設施管理造成人民財產之侵害與救濟賠償之認定，並分析軍人撫卹與國家賠償競合之問題。第五章為結論與建議。本章分別就各章之內容總結，具以建立完整之軍事機關國家賠償責任體系，俾提供軍中處理國家賠償案件時之參考；另就研究發現予以歸納評析，並提出建議，例如建立軍事機關公權力行為之行政程序、確實督導軍事設施之設置管理程序，以減少軍中公權力行為之侵權情事，強化其保護照顧義務等等，希冀今後軍事機關對人及對物之管理，能符合依法行政原理之要求。 / This study aims at discussing the State Compensation Law in military authority from two perspectives, including the liability for damages arising from the act of employees of the government acting within the scope of their office (the liability of people), and from a defect in the installation or management of government-owned public facility (the liability of objects). A case study comparison was done between the court of Japan and Taiwan, where the verdicts from both courts were compared so as to construct a pattern for state’s liability in military compensation. We hope that in this way, controversy over state compensation liability could be controlled. The essay is divided into five chapters: the first is introduction, illustrating the motive and purpose, scope and limitation, and structure and method of this study. In chapter two, we will outline the state compensation system, with regard to its definition, classification, applicability, development, theory, and the relationship between the liability of state and public servants, in order to establish a jurisprudential foundation. Then, we will discuss the differences and similarities between the compensation claims in Japan and our country’s State Compensation Law, while analyzing similar cases in Taiwan. The origin, content, changes of special power relation will be examined in chapter three, where the limitation and protection of basic rights of public servants, students, prison inmates, and soldiers are discussed. In chapter four, we will use the jurisprudential foundation stated in chapter two to analyze the military authority and state compensation. By compiling relevant regulations and state compensation claims, we will do a judicial review on the state compensation claims as a result of military authority, the definition of compensation and damages arising from the installation or management of military facility, and the competition between military indemnity and state compensation. Chapter five will be conclusion and suggestion, containing appraisal of each chapter and constructing a system of complete state compensation liability in military authority, as a reference for future claims. In addition, important remarks and suggestion will be provided, such as to establish administrative procedure for military authority and management procedure of military facility. This is to prevent the violation of right from the military, and enhance their obligation to protect and attend, hoping the military could build the rule of law when managing objects and actions of people.

En France, à la suite de précédentes constitutions, la Constitution de la Ve République consacre l’état de siège (art. 36) ; à l’étranger, de nombreux pays l’ont adopté. Ce constat laisse béant un paradoxe suivant : si la France adopte, la première, une législation d’exception, elle n’offre pas pour autant de réflexion approfondie sur ce qu’est l’état d’exception. L’étude des origines et de l’histoire de l’état de siège met au jour les raisons d’un tel paradoxe.L’état de siège est originellement une disposition technique du droit militaire (loi des 8-10 juillet 1791), qui prévoit que, dans certaines circonstances, l’ordre public et la police passent de l’autorité civile, compétence par principe, à l’autorité militaire. Ainsi, la loi prévoit le renversement du principe selon lequel l’autorité civile prime sur le militaire. Au cours de la Révolution, cette disposition est utilisée afin de réprimer les troubles violents qui se multiplient à l’intérieur du territoire. Durant le XIXe siècle, les régimes successifs y recourent également, jusqu’à ce que la Cour de cassation, en 1832, donne un coup d’arrêt à cette pratique. Le législateur est donc contraint d’adopter un texte – la loi du 9 août 1849 – qui encadre précisément son usage. Cette loi est, véritablement, une législation d’exception, au sens où elle contrevient à un principe consacré par l’ordre constitutionnel, en fonction de circonstances déterminées, pour un temps et un lieu circonscrits. Elle accorde également à l’autorité militaire des pouvoirs étendus qui restreignent les libertés publiques, et consacre la compétence des juridictions militaires pour juger les non-militaires. / In France, following previous Constitutions, the state of siege gained acceptance under the Constitution of the Fifth Republic (art. 36); many countries abroad adopted it. This fact leaves a gaping paradox: even if France adopts the first emergency legislation, it does not mean that it provides an in depth reflection on what is the state of emergency. The study of the genesis and history of the state of siege reveals the reasons for such a paradox. Originally, the state of siege was a technical measure of military law (law of July 8-10, 1791), which provided that in certain circumstances, public order and police would transfer from the civil authority, competent on principle, to the military authority. Thus, law foresaw the reversal of the principle according to which the civil authority takes precedence over the military. During the Revolution, this measure was used to suppress the violent unrest that became more frequent inside the territory. Throughout the nineteenth century, successive governments had also recourse to it until the Supreme Court put an end to this practice in 1832. Consequently ,the legislator was forced to pass a bill - the Law of August 9, 1849 - which would frame precisely its use. This law truly is an emergency law, which means that it contravenes a principle enshrined in the constitutional order, depending on specific circumstances, for a circumscribed time and place. It also gives to the military authority enlarged powers which restrict civil liberties, and establishes the jurisdiction of military courts to judge non-military courts.