Ce travail s’appuie sur les études culturelles et historiques, la géopolitique, la narratologie, et la sémiologie de l’image pour étudier la guerre contre le terrorisme et ses représentations dans les séries télévisées américaines "24 heures chrono" et "Homeland". Produites à dix ans d’intervalle, ces deux fictions majeures de l’après-11 Septembre ont souvent été mises en opposition du fait de leur idéologie supposée, dans la lignée de la présidence républicaine de George W. Bush pour la première, de la présidence démocrate de Barack Obama pour la seconde. Cependant, l’on trouve de nombreuses ressemblances qui tendent non seulement à rapprocher "24" et "Homeland", mais également les présidences Bush et Obama. Notre travail consistera ainsi à mettre au jour l’ambivalence politique des deux programmes afin de s’interroger plus généralement sur les ruptures et les continuités de cette guerre mondiale contre le terrorisme que les États-Unis mènent depuis bientôt deux décennies. / This work uses cultural and historical studies, geopolitics, narratology, and visual semiotics to analyse the representations of the War on Terror in "24" and "Homeland", two emblematic post-9/11 American television series. These shows, which started airing almost a decade apart, have often been opposed to each other because of their presumed ideologies. Both dealing with the War on Terror, "24" has been said to reflect the conservatism of the Bush years, while "Homeland" would correspond to Obama’s liberal presidency. However, upon closer examination, many similarities can be found – which would not only bridge "24" and "Homeland", but also George W. Bush and Barack Obama’s presidencies. This work thus aims to deconstruct the preconceptions surrounding the two series by exploring their political ambivalence in order to question the ruptures and continuities in the global War on Terror which the United States has been conducting for almost twenty years now.

This diploma thesis focuses on the legitimization methods in case of George W. Bush's war on terror and Osama bin Laden's terrorist attacks. It takes into consideration the time period from the 9th of September 2001 (the date of the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington D.C.) until the 20th of March 2003 (the beginning of the USA's invasion in Iraq). Using the discourse analysis methodology, the thesis presents the different legitimization approaches, which were used frequently, or not at all. The analysis itself is based on a database of the official statements of the two leaders or their close fellows. The interpretation of these approaches and the analysis of the societal, political, cultural or religious context, highlight the common and different features of these two cases. The aim of this thesis is to argue that despite very different political roles George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden played, their legitimization approaches were, in fact, very similar.

This dissertation presents the U.S. Army Asymmetric Warfare Group (AWG) as an example of that service implementing successful change in wartime. It argues that creating the AWG required senior leaders to adopt a vision differing from the Army’s self-conceptualization, change bureaucratic processes to permit that vision to produce an actual military unit, and then place the new unit in the hands of uniquely qualified leaders able to build and sustain it. In the process, the dissertation will consider forces that influence change within the Army, arguing that the two most significant are its self-conceptualization and institutional bureaucracy. Only determined senior leaders can overcome these barriers, and then only by deep personal engagement. Such engagement extends to manipulating the bureaucracy by placing like-minded subordinates in positions where they can sustain the tenets of change long after the visionaries retire. The dissertation also posits effective leadership as critical to building and sustaining organizations able to consistently meet their founders’ vision. To effectively tell the story, the dissertation explores three major subject areas that provide historical context. The first is the Army’s institutional history from the early 1950s through 2001. This period begins with the Army seeking to validate its place in America’s national security strategy and ends with the Army trying to chart a path into the post-Cold War future. That section includes the major bureaucratic changes brought about by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara in the early 1960s as these changes created processes the service still uses. It also addresses the Army’s post-Vietnam War focus on re-establishing itself as a technologically sophisticated force optimized to defeat similar opponents. This dissertation also looks at several episodes further in the past. Prior to World War I, the Army’s history is largely one of asymmetric warfare. The dissertation thus examines several campaigns that offered lessons for subsequent wars. Some lessons the Army took to heart, others it ignored. Finally, the dissertation chronicles the AWG’s creation in 2006. The AWG was a direct outgrowth of the failures and frustrations that the Army experienced in Afghanistan and Iraq. The dissertation examines these campaigns and identifies the specific problems that led senior Army leaders to create the AWG. It also chronicles the organizations growth and re-assignment from the Army staff to a fully-fledged organization subordinate to the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command in 2011. This reassignment placed a now mature AWG in the Army’s standard force structure, a place it held until its 2021 deactivation. This deactivation did not result not from the unit’s failure to adapt to a post-insurgency Army focusing on technical modernization. Rather, it resulted from the Army’s inability to realize that while the AWG originated as a response to counterinsurgency, it provided a capability to support the Army during a period of great strategic and institutional uncertainty. / History

The 9/11 attacks changed how western societies, and with them the world, view terrorism. To respond to these events, western democracies allied to fight for their values against what they saw as their sworn enemies. It is in this fight that the research takes place and assesses if western democracies did lose sight of their primary objective, which was to spread democracy and its principles across the world. This study will assess how democracies deconstruct themselves through the methods they employ to win this War on terror. More precisely, this study will analyze the USA and France’s approaches and their consequences on them as representatives of western democracies. The research finds itself in a new approach that focuses on a historical, social, and linguistic aspect of the decisions made by these States as it aims to assess the self-deconstruction of democracies in their fight against terrorism. The research question that will lead this thesis is formulated as such: ‘How are the methods used by western Democracies in their fight against Islamic terrorism causing their deconstruction?’ and will be using a textual analysis approach to the topic by analyzing speeches and legal documents that have played a crucial role in the current shape of these democracies. The expected results are to understand if democratic values have been victims of the ‘War on terror’ and if democracies have started a transformation process from a focus on liberties to a priority on security.

The Arab Spring led to the overthrow of multiple authoritarian regimes in the Middle East and North Africa and to the flow of arms and fighters from Libya to Western African countries, triggering the crisis in the Sahel and altering the security landscape of the region. The Sahel, a quite stable region, became vulnerable to the rise of terrorism due to political instability, internal conflicts dynamics and power vacuum which led to ungoverned spaces to be seen as safe havens to terrorist groups. The international community, fearing the spread of terrorism, initiated multiple operations in the region such as an UN mission in Mali – MINUSMA – and the French-led intervention in the G5 – operation Barkhane. After 9/11, a change in perception took place and terrorism now came to be seen as a transnational threat to world peace and stability, leading to the inclusion of a new role during peacekeeping operations – stabilisation – achievable by the use of military power. This study, based on secondary data research, aims to understand the transformation of peace and counterterrorism operations in the Sahel region. The study notes that the view of Sahelian states as fragile and weak and due to that the perfect target for transnational terrorism justifies the West interventions in the region. However, even under a development-security nexus, all interventions were carried out with only one purpose – fight against terrorism – as the global war on terror was seen as required to reinstate security in the Sahel. In this sense, MINUSMA can be seen as a laboratory test, also because it was working side by side with French troops which were under a counterterrorism mandate, which goes completely out of UN’s character. This mission created a dangerous precedent as it goes beyond the normal understanding of peacekeeping missions. This thesis argues that the change of peace and counterterrorism operations in the region happened due to the perception of terrorism as a transnational threat and of the Sahel region as a safe haven for the proliferation of terrorism. Moreover, all interventions had Western interests in mind and not even one was focused on addressing the underlying causes of the conflicts such as political instability, climate change and food insecurity which enlarged the humanitarian challenges in the Sahel.

No description available.

No description available.

Syftet med denna studie var att komma till insikt, dels om hur kriget mot terrorismen har präglat diskursen kring det rättfärdiga kriget med dess särskilt utmärkande preventiva krigföring, och dels om huruvida begreppet "illegal kombattant" kan betraktas som legalt eller inte. Denna studie visar hur krigskonceptet har blivit alltmer diffust sedan det kalla kriget och hur attackerna gentemot USA den elfte september 2001 innebar en brytpunkt gällande diskussionerna kring rättfärdig krigföring. Studien visar också att begreppet "illegal kombattant", med dess preventiva syfte, tillvisso skulle kunna betraktas som legitimt i kontext till omfattningen av ovan nämnda attacker men att dess innebörd inte kan betraktas som legalt i vare sig nationell eller internationell bemärkelse. Jag har kommit till denna insikt genom att identifiera en diskursiv företeelse och lyfta fram dess legalitets- och legitimitetsaspekter och genom att identifiera en juridisk företeelse och lyfta fram syftet med dess innebörd med fokus främst på dess legalitetsaspekter. Med en diskursanalys har jag undersökt talet om det rättfärdiga kriget efter den elfte september, och genom en juridisk analys har jag prövat begreppet "illegal kombattant" gentemot nationell och internationell rätt. Dessa två analyser har fogats samman genom en samlad studie av kriget mot terrorismen och dess legalitets- respektive legitimitetsaspekter. / The purpose of this study was to come to realization on how the war on terror has characterized the discourse on Just War with its particularly distinctive preventive warfare, and also on whether the term "unlawful combatant" can be regarded as legal or not. This study shows how the concept of war has become increasingly diffuse since the Cold War and how the attacks against the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001 represented an inflection point on the discussions of righteous warfare. The study also shows that the term "illegal combatant", with its preventive purposes, to a certain extent might be regarded as legitimate in the context of the magnitude of the above-mentioned attacks but that its content can not be regarded as legal in either a national or international sense. I have come to this realization by identifying a discursive phenomenon and highlighting its legality and legitimacy aspects and by identifying a legal phenomenon and highlighting the purpose and meaning of it, primarily focusing on its legality aspects. With a discourse analysis, I have examined the speach on Just War after September 11, and with a legal analysis, I have tested the notion of "unlawful combatant" against national and international law. These two analyzes have been consolidated in a comprehensive study of the war on terrorism and its legality and legitimacy aspects.

Syftet med den här studien var att komma till insikt om huruvida Bushadministrationens ageranden kring behandlingen av internerna i det nordamerikanska fånglägret på Kuba kan betraktas vara legala eller inte. Mina analyser visar att USA har brutit mot internationella såväl som nationella lagar.Jag har kommit till denna insikt genom att identifiera de viktigaste handlingarna – och dess syften – i anslutning till USAs ageranden och genom att jämföra dessa med internationell rätt och med USAs nationella lagar och avtal. Tre handlingar har stått i fokus; upprättandet av fånglägret på Kuba, med syfte att eliminera fångarnas konstitutionella skydd genom att internera dem utom USAs landsgränser; instiftningen av begreppet "illegal kombattant", med syfte att tillintetgöra internernas krigsfångestatus och därmed det internationellrättsliga skydd som tillfaller krigsfångar genom krigets lagar och; den hårda fysiska och psykiska behandlingen av fångarna, med syfte att erhålla information för att förhindra terrorism.Med en juridisk arbetsmetod har jag således prövat dessa handlingar mot USAs konstitution och mot instiftningen av nya nationella lagar, mot Genèvekonventionerna med dess tilläggsprotokoll och mot FN-konventioner. / The purpose of this study was to come to realization on whether the Bush administration's conduct regarding the treatment of inmates in the American prison camp in Cuba can be considered legal or not. My analysis shows that the U.S. has violated international and national laws.I have come to this realization by identifying the most important single actions – and their purposes – related to the U.S. conduct, and by comparing them with international law and U.S. national laws and agreements. Three single actions have been in focus; the establishment of the prison camp in Cuba, with the purpose to eliminate the prisoners' rights to constitutional protection by detaining them outside U.S. land borders; the establishment of the term "unlawful combatant", with the purpose to eliminate the prisoners' POW status, and thus the international legal protection accruing prisoners of war within the laws of war and; the rough physical and psychological treatment of the prisoners, in order to obtain information to prevent terrorism.With a legal method of working, I have thus tested these actions against the U.S. Constitution and the establishment of new national laws, against the Geneva Conventions and its additional protocols, and against UN conventions.

<p>This dissertation examines the (critical) security effects that US Foreign Policy, and in particular the War on Terror (WOT), has had on East and Southeast Asia. This dissertation also articulates an innovative critical security approach that requires a post-structuralism based in Stephen K. White’s notion of “weak ontology,” and further demands a historically and geographically contingent method of immanent critique that allows us to grapple with the politics and ethics of actually occurring security logics. <em>As</em> a form of immanent critique rooted in a weak ontological understanding of critical security, this dissertation asks- and answers- the following question(s): What can a critical security analysis tell us about security/insecurity that a more conventional realist-based security analysis cannot? And more specifically, what can a critical security analysis tell us about the impact that the WOT has had on both state and non-state actors in East and Southeast Asia? In other words, <em>operating as an immanent critique</em> in the context of empirical examples in East and Southeast Asia, this dissertation demonstrates that forms of insecurity were constructed and/or abetted by the WOT itself, understood as a hegemonic security narrative, and that these forms of insecurity occurred in concert with the practice of traditional forms of state-centric security.</p> <p>This dissertation contributes to scholarship in two significant ways. First, it seeks to remedy the relative paucity of <em>critical</em> security analyses focused on East Asia and Southeast Asia. Second, this dissertation demonstrates- using the weak ontological immanent critique approach that it outlines- that a deconstructive critical security analysis based in post-structuralist commitments need not be anathema to engagements with pragmatic problems and security issues, nor should it have to preclude the possibility of enacting the politics and ethics that are required to theorize alternative security logics.</p> / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)