Thesis advisor: Charles Gallagher / Thesis advisor: Peter Krause / Drone strikes are sensational events. The United States Government uses remotely piloted aircraft (or drones) equipped with precisions weapons systems to unilaterally hunt and kill its enemies across the globe. The American public, and many around the world, are startled by the pervasiveness of American lethal force. In many ways, drone strikes are unprecedented. The technology, the frequency of use, and the geographic scope are all by-products of the twenty-first century. However, the United States government has a deep history of debating whether to kill individual enemies, and has a history of authorizing operations to do so. Beneath the rhetoric, the arguments, and the opinions that dominate drone policy today there is something missing: the history. This thesis argues that there are historical precedents for targeted killings and signature strikes in American history that predate the September 11 terrorist attacks and examining these past operations can inform modern policy. / Thesis (BA) — Boston College, 2014. / Submitted to: Boston College. College of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: College Honors Program. / Discipline: History.

No / In a marked departure from previous national governments, those led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) sought to address national security issues both proactively and strategically in line with the party¿s philosophy of achieving a strong India. This paper begins by examining the strategic vision of the BJP. It then analyses how this vision led the BJP to make India an overt nuclear weapons state in 1998, and how this status affected the government¿s actions in the Kargil Conflict of 1999. This is followed by an closer examination of national security strategy under the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA), particularly as outlined in the seminal Reforming the National Security System: Recommendations of the Group of Ministers of 2001, and how this administration responded to the near-war situation which developed between India and Pakistan in the spring-summer of 2002. The paper then will conceptualise NDA national security policy as ¿strong at home, engaged abroad¿ as evidenced by defence spending on external and internal security, the military¿s deployment on peacekeeping duties, and defence cooperation with other countries. It will conclude with an examination as to whether this national security policy as conceptualised here will remain effective and/or viable in the future.

The United States needs a long-term counterterrorism strategy in Yemen. Nearly three years in, the faltering Yemeni transition threatens to fall apart in the face of an economic crisis, ongoing internal conflict, and al Qaeda attacks. Unchecked, a failed Yemeni state will provide al Qaeda with a larger recruiting base and an expanded area for operations. To prevent this nightmare scenario, the United States should integrate military restructuring, political reform, and economic development policies into its greater strategy to counter al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). This report describes the dynamics of the 2011 Yemeni uprising, the subsequent political transition, and the simultaneous evolution of AQAP. The report then analyzes these phenomena in the context of U.S. national security policy to determine a long-term counterterrorism strategy in Yemen. To succeed in defeating AQAP and stabilizing Yemen, the U.S. government must engage with its Yemeni partners and regional actors; invest in Yemen's military restructuring, political transition, and economic reforms; and continue to attack AQAP through direct action operations and in tandem with Yemeni armed forces. / text

Thesis advisor: Shep Melnick / Most of the literature on the separation of powers in the war on terror vastly overstates the power of the presidency and pays little attention to the respective roles of Congress, the courts, and the bureaucracy in prosecuting that conflict. Scholars – especially those in the legal academy – have consistently failed to appreciate the ways in which the president has been, and continues to be, checked and constrained by a variety of forces. In my dissertation, I engage in highly detailed case studies of U.S. law and policy with respect to detention and military commissions in the war on terror. I pay special attention to the complex interactions that occurred within and between our governing institutions in these policy areas. There are two central arguments that come out of my research and run through my case studies. First, the political scientist Robert Kagan’s work on “adversarial legalism” is no longer simply applicable to the domestic policy realm. The proliferation of legal rules and extensive litigation has increasingly come to characterize foreign affairs as well, with important consequences for how the U.S. implements its national security policies and fights its armed conflicts. In short, adversarial legalism has gone to war. Second, loose talk about the “unitary” nature of the executive branch is misleading. The executive branch is a sprawling bureaucracy made up of diverse actors with different perspectives, preferences, and norms, and that bureaucracy has interacted with Congress and the courts in surprising ways to constrain the presidency in the war on terror. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2016. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Political Science.

National security policies are defined as ¡§Those effective procedures or actions taken by the government to guard the nation whenever the nation encounters the crises endangering national security¡¨. After the end of the curfew in 1987, the authoritarian form of government turned into a democratic one. In the transformation process from 1988 to 2008, the ¡§silent revolution¡¨ had been achieved through the peaceful exchange of the ruling parties, which had increased the democratic development of Taiwan and renewed each social status. Nevertheless, diversified opinions and disagreements resulted from such a successful revolution. The transition of political party in 2000 is a turning point. Different ruling parties hold different claims and implement different national policies. Moreover, the nation security was influenced by three crucial issues¡Ftherefore, the formulation and implementation of national security policies are worthy of deeper exploration. This research structure followed the politic systematical theory and investigated our national security policies to achieve the following two purposes¡G (a) the investigation of the crucial period after the end of curfew, the formulation of the national security policies under the politic systematical theory and different ruling concepts by different ruling parties, and (b) the analysis and comparison of the national secure policies, in terms of the politic systematical theory, between different ruling parties¡¦ viewpoints in the operation of the democratic system.

Die vorgelegte Arbeit stellt eine explorative Studie auf dem Feld der Inneren Sicherheit dar. Angelehnt an politikfeldanalytische Ansätze werden Akteure und Institutionen im Bereich der Inneren Sicherheit dargestellt und hinsichtlich ihrer Bedeutung im Rahmen der Terrorismusbekämpfung untersucht. Darüber hinaus wird erklärt, welche Faktoren für Veränderungen und Entwicklungen in der Bundesrepublik insbesondere vor dem Hintergrund der Ereignisse des 11. September 2001 verantwortlich sind. Leitend für die Analyse ist es, auf Basis der Beschreibung der Akteure und der aktuellen Gesetzeslage die Art und Richtung der Veränderungen in den letzten zehn Jahren zu untersuchen und zu erklären. Im Rahmen der vorgelegten Untersuchung werden darüber hinaus die politikpraktischen und grundrechtlichen Probleme diskutiert, die im Bereich der Inneren Sicherheit von Bedeutung sind. Zugleich werden aber auch politologische Erklärungen für das Entstehen (und Verabschieden) von Gesetzen im Politikfeld Innere Sicherheit gegeben. Im Bewusstsein, dass eine vollständige Bearbeitung des Politikfeldes Innere Sicherheit nicht in angemessenem Umfang geleistet werden kann, konzentriert sich die Arbeit nur auf ausgewählte Entwicklungen im Politikfeld Innere Sicherheit. Hierbei wurden nur die Entwicklungen und Veränderungen der so genannten Architektur der Inneren Sicherheit in Deutschland in den Blick genommen, bei denen ein argumentativer oder sachlicher Zusammenhang mit den Ereignissen des 11. September zu beweisen oder plausibel zu vermuten ist. Entwicklungen in europäischen Nachbarstaaten werden dagegen nicht untersucht. Die Auswahl der behandelten Maßnahmen erfolgt auch danach, inwieweit sie in den öffentlichen Debatten überhaupt eine Rolle gespielt haben und wie hoch die Auswirkungen von politischen Entscheidungen beispielsweise auf die Grundrechte der Bürger oder auf die Sicherheitsarchitektur waren (und sind). Die Anschläge des 11. September 2001 selbst werden jedoch nicht analysiert.

Die vorgelegte Arbeit stellt eine explorative Studie auf dem Feld der Inneren Sicherheit dar. Angelehnt an politikfeldanalytische Ansätze werden Akteure und Institutionen im Bereich der Inneren Sicherheit dargestellt und hinsichtlich ihrer Bedeutung im Rahmen der Terrorismusbekämpfung untersucht. Darüber hinaus wird erklärt, welche Faktoren für Veränderungen und Entwicklungen in der Bundesrepublik insbesondere vor dem Hintergrund der Ereignisse des 11. September 2001 verantwortlich sind. Leitend für die Analyse ist es, auf Basis der Beschreibung der Akteure und der aktuellen Gesetzeslage die Art und Richtung der Veränderungen in den letzten zehn Jahren zu untersuchen und zu erklären. Im Rahmen der vorgelegten Untersuchung werden darüber hinaus die politikpraktischen und grundrechtlichen Probleme diskutiert, die im Bereich der Inneren Sicherheit von Bedeutung sind. Zugleich werden aber auch politologische Erklärungen für das Entstehen (und Verabschieden) von Gesetzen im Politikfeld Innere Sicherheit gegeben. Im Bewusstsein, dass eine vollständige Bearbeitung des Politikfeldes Innere Sicherheit nicht in angemessenem Umfang geleistet werden kann, konzentriert sich die Arbeit nur auf ausgewählte Entwicklungen im Politikfeld Innere Sicherheit. Hierbei wurden nur die Entwicklungen und Veränderungen der so genannten Architektur der Inneren Sicherheit in Deutschland in den Blick genommen, bei denen ein argumentativer oder sachlicher Zusammenhang mit den Ereignissen des 11. September zu beweisen oder plausibel zu vermuten ist. Entwicklungen in europäischen Nachbarstaaten werden dagegen nicht untersucht. Die Auswahl der behandelten Maßnahmen erfolgt auch danach, inwieweit sie in den öffentlichen Debatten überhaupt eine Rolle gespielt haben und wie hoch die Auswirkungen von politischen Entscheidungen beispielsweise auf die Grundrechte der Bürger oder auf die Sicherheitsarchitektur waren (und sind). Die Anschläge des 11. September 2001 selbst werden jedoch nicht analysiert.

本論文研究的主題是泰國為維護其邊界安全作出的國家安全政策。泰國位在印度支那半島的中心點，當周邊國家發生動亂時，泰國就成為政治難民逃難的目的地，而且入侵的人數非常多。先後進入泰國的政治難民有泰北孤軍、馬來亞共產黨及柬埔寨難民。本文探討他們進入泰國的原因、在泰國的行為、及泰國政府處置政治難民的政策及最後的歸屬。當時泰國國內也深受共產主義的迫害，使得泰國政府除了要消除來自國外的威脅，還要利用這些難民來協助阻止泰共的活動，或者利用這些難民團體構建其邊疆的防衛圈，成為防衛泰國邊界的前沿軍隊。最後泰國政府以其維護邊境安全有功的理由給予泰北孤軍和馬來亞共產黨人泰國籍，對柬埔寨難民則採取遣返回國或送至第三國安置的辦法。總之，泰國政府以包容性的政策，容納週鄰政治難民，藉以防衛其邊境並開發其邊疆荒蕪之地，是乃泰國邊境安全政策成功之道。 / This paper focuses on Thailand’s national security policy for its boundary issue. Due to the central position in Indo-Chinese Peninsular, when there happened the political turmoil of the surrounding countries, territory of Thailand has been used as a shelter for a large number of political refugees. Those political refugee groups include the Chinese Nationalist troops (KMT), Communist Party of Malaya (CPM), and Cambodian refugees. The reasons of political refugees entering into Thailand, activities and Thai government policy towards them, would be discussed in this paper. Since the 1950s, Thailand suffered from rebel activities of the Communist Party of Thailand, so Thai government took advantage of combating experience of political refugees to fight against those Thai Communists in bordering area. Thai government even gave them the land and agricultural instruments to cultivate in bordering area and encouraged them stay by giving Thailand nationality to KMT troops and members of CPM, but repatriated those Cambodia refugees to back to Cambodia or to resettle in the third country. Thai government adopted an accommodate policy towards those political refugee groups, by using them to defence its border area and develop the economy, successfully to maitain its border security.

雖則蘇聯已經解體，世界進入了後冷戰時代。在冷戰時期相互抗衡的美蘇關係，仍是學界研究的熱點之一。自1990年冷戰終結之後，蘇聯、原本在舊蘇聯中的國家及中國大陸檔案資料的陸續開放，對韓戰研究可說有了新的突破。以美國學者John Lewis Gaddis為首的冷戰國際史學派補充或批判了前面包括傳統學派、修正學派等研究的不足之處。 本文引用檔案和韓戰研究學者的論點與分析，重新梳理在韓戰前後蘇中的國家安全政策考量，並深入析論有關下列幾項當今學者尚未分析或深入研究的種種問題。 本研究嘗試結合國際關係與冷戰國際史(Cold War International History Project)兩學門之跨領域研究，藉以澄清韓戰時期國際體系成員的互動及其造成的影響。另外，也試著使用理性決策模式來分析中蘇兩國領導人的國家安全決策。 研究結果顯示中蘇兩國領導人都是以理性判斷認為自己的決策是正確的，然而事實結果卻並非如此。莫斯科對平壤所提之韓戰計畫錯誤地開放了「綠燈」，北京在多次以外交方式警告華盛頓無效之後，認為美國可能進攻中國東北，並對其新興政權造成威脅，以致最後出兵介入韓戰。戰爭的結果最後還是在38度線附近簽署了停戰協定，但南北韓仍舊尚未統一，無數人員卻因此喪失寶貴的生命。 本文結論提出在美軍進逼鴨綠江和蘇聯的雙重壓力下，中共最後決定出兵介入韓戰，主因是國家安全利益。中共軍事戰略因戰局轉變而改變其戰略：前期是「間接路線」與「殲滅戰」，後期則是「消耗戰」。不論是在軍事戰略或是外交戰略上，莫斯科扮演之角色是在背後指揮協調北京和平壤。蘇聯使中共成為「責任承擔者」(buck-catcher)，本國則扮演「離岸平衡者」(offshore balancer)的角色。中共和北韓事事都要通報莫斯科，由莫斯科做出最後決定─即使北京和平壤兩方都想停戰，莫斯科仍堅持不停戰。戰爭後期蘇聯為削弱美國和中共實力，支持中共續戰。 韓戰停戰協議之簽署是因史達林去世之後。莫斯科認為戰爭再繼續有損蘇聯國家利益，乃通知平壤和北京有關停戰的解決方針的策略。韓戰協議的簽署基本上是在莫斯科新政府的領導與調停之下，北京和平壤最後遵循了莫斯科的指示才停戰。 中蘇兩造在共同利益驅使之下為追求個別利益，在利益衝突之間尋求合作利益。兩國且於韓戰之中各自為該國的國家利益著想，盟友關係只是暫時的而非永久的。 / In this study, an attempt is made to clarify the interactions between the members of the international system during the Korean War in an interdisciplinary approach combining the International Relations and the Cold War International History. Based on the materials from opened archives in the former Soviet Union and Communist China, the considerations, objectives and national security strategies of the leaders are analyzed in the light of the rational decision-making model. The results show that although the leaders made their own judgments based on rational thinking, the outcome of the war is the armistice agreement demarcating the 38th parallel as the borderline between the two Koreas with minor changes; North and South Korea are still yet to be reunified, despite numerous soldiers and civilians losing their precious lives. The conclusion is as follows. China decided to send troops to intervene in the Korean War mainly due to national security interest to cope with the threat of the approaching US forces and the Soviet Union pressure. To cope with the varying war situation, China’s military strategy changed from the “war of annihilation” and the “indirect approach strategy” in the former phase, to the “strategy of exhaustion” in the later phase. Whether in the military or diplomatic field, Moscow played a commanding role and coordinated of Beijing and Pyongyang behind. Soviet Union made China the “buck-catcher”, meanwhile played the role as the “offshore balancer”. Soviet Union pushed for the continuation of the war to weaken the strength of United States, in spite of the reluctance of China and North Korea. It was after Joseph V. Stalin’s death than the Armistice Agreement was finally signed. The signing of the agreement was essentially under the lead of the new leadership in Moscow. Both Soviet Union and China sought their own national interest during the Korean war. The Sino- Soviet alliance was only temporary rather than permanent.