La rencontre historique entre Abdul Aziz Ibn Saoud et le président américain Franklin D. Roosevelt à bord de l’U.S.S Quincy en mer rouge en février 1945, donna lieu à l’instauration des fondements d’une véritable alliance à long terme, basée sur des intérêts communs très forts entre l’Arabie Saoudite et les Etats-Unis. Le royaume a joué d’ailleurs un rôle important dans l’endiguement du nationalisme arabe et dans l’empêchement de toute pénétration soviétique au Moyen-Orient. Il a joué également un rôle central dans l’endiguement de la révolution islamique iranienne de Khomeiny. Cette alliance va mettre cependant du temps pour atteindre le degré au quelle elle est arrivée lors de la guerre du Golfe de 1990-1991, qui a eu comme résultat une présence militaire américaine permanente sur le sol saoudien et la radicalisation de l’opposition islamiste. Les attentats du 11 septembre 2001, qui ont constitué un véritable choc pour les deux pays, provoquèrent un profond malaise dans les relations américano-saoudiennes. Riyad s’est trouvée dans une situation délicate, quinze des dix neuf pirates de l’air étaient Saoudiens ainsi que le chef d’al-Qaida, Oussama Ben Laden. On assista à une détérioration des relations entre les deux pays et une grande suspicion qui eut du mal à se dissiper, malgré les déclarations de bonne volonté des dirigeants des deux pays. Soumise à d’énormes pressions américaines, l’Arabie Saoudite lança une série de réformes en vue de rassurer Washington et faire face également à une situation très compliquée sur le plan interne (problèmes socio-économiques, le rôle de l’institution religieuse wahhabite, l’extrémisme religieux, droits de la minorité chiite, la question de succession…). Le réchauffement constaté dans les relations entre les deux pays à partir de 2003, qui culmina avec l’instauration du « dialogue stratégique » en 2005, laissa rapidement place à une graduelle prise de distance entre Riyad et Washington à propos de plusieurs dossiers régionaux (la situation en Irak, les ambitions régionales ainsi que le programme nucléaire et balistique de l’Iran, le processus de paix, la Syrie…). Cette prise de distance s’est confirmée avec l’éclatement du «printemps arabe » et le lancement par les Etats-Unis d’une nouvelle stratégie, axée sur un désengagement de la puissance américaine vers la zone du Pacifique. / The Historical meeting between Adul Aziz Ibn Saoud and the US President, Franklin D. Roosevelt on bord of U.S.S Quincy in the Red Sea at February, 1945, had set up a real long standing Alliance based on a strong common Interests between Saudi Arabia and the United States. It will take a time for this Alliance to be at the level it had during the Gulf War (1990-1991), Wich had as result a permanent US Military presence in the Kingdom and the radicalization of Islamist Opposition. The 9/11 Attacks, which was a real Choc for the two Countries and provocated an Embarassment in the US- Saudi relations. Riyad was in a delicate situation, Fifteen of the Nineteen Hijackers of September 9, 11 was Saudis such as head of Al-Qaeda Oussama Ben Laden. We assisted then to a deterioration of the relations between the two Countries and a great Suspicion although some declarations of good Intentions by leaders of two Countries. Subject of a tremendous US pressures, the Saudi Arabia has inaugurated a series of Reforms to reassure Washington and to face a complicated internal situation (Socio-economic problems, the role of the Wahhabi religious Institution, religious Extremism, rights of Chia minority, the problem of succession). The warming of the relations between the two Countries by 2003 wich culminated with the instauration of « Strategic Dialogue » in 2005, made rapidly room to a gradual taken distance between Riyad and Washington about some Regional matters (Iraqi situation, the regional ambitions just as the Nuclear and Balistic program of Ira ; Peace Process ; Syria…). This taken distance is confirmed by the events of « Arab Spring » and the New American Strategy of disengagement to the Pacific Zone.

東南亞海域的海洋運輸在亞太地區經濟成長上扮演相當重要的角色。一旦海上環境遭受猛烈恐怖襲擊，全球的船運和貿易活動立即會受到嚴重的影響。尤其是麻六甲海峽的特殊地理環境，讓恐怖份子很容易在良好策劃下，完成海上恐怖攻擊活動。後續該地區的保險金額將會高得驚人，造成整個東南亞地區的海運、亞洲地區的貿易、全球經濟的成長都會受到波及。這也正是為何執恐怖世界牛耳的「蓋達」組織正在積極組建「海軍」，對海上恐怖攻擊展現高度興趣的主要原因。近幾年來東南亞海盜有漸趨暴力的傾向，加上「蓋達」組織的阿富汗基地受創，部分幹部落腳於東南亞，更加深人們對於手段殘暴的海盜與海上恐怖主義的聯想。「蓋達」業已投注許多心力發展海上攻擊能力，如果再與東南亞恐怖組織分享研究成果的話，情況勢必更加棘手。 本文特別針對印尼、馬來西亞、新加坡、菲律賓與泰國等五個國家作分析，檢視各國所發生的海上暴力事件以及處理的方式，並且研究各國主政者對於恐怖主義的態度。此外，對於與海上恐怖主義有關聯的東南亞恐怖組織包括「伊斯蘭教祈禱團」、「阿布薩耶夫」、「摩洛伊斯蘭解放陣線」與「摩洛民族解放陣線」等，分析其有無跨界發展的能量與發動海上恐怖攻擊的能力。文中也試著從「東協」及其相關組織以及「聯合國」、「國際海事局」、「國際海事組織」、「亞太經濟合作會議」等全球性的機構分析其面對新興海上恐怖主義活動的回應，進而整理出促進東南亞各國在海上安全維護上更進一步合作的措施。最後針對台灣的海上反恐作一檢視，希望可以從全球海上反恐的努力獲取經驗，與全球反恐接軌，提升國家海上安全的保障。 關鍵字：海上恐怖主義活動、「蓋達」組織、麻六甲海峽、九一一事件、東南亞、海盜。

Évènement exceptionnel, les attentats du 11 septembre ont marqué l'entrée de la politique mondiale dans l'ère de la crise du jihadisme international. Si l'apparition de la menace jihadiste est antérieure à 2001, l'attaque qaidiste perpétrée à l'encontre des États-Unis a en effet représenté un saut qualitatif d'envergure, en ce qu'elle a été synonyme d'agression commise par des acteurs privés aucœur de l'hyperpuissance d'après-Guerre froide, et en ce qu'elle a constitué le point de départ d'un essor considérable du péril jihadiste. De la destruction du World Trade Center aux attentats du 13 novembre, en passant par le rapt des lycéennes de Chibok ou l'érection de l'État islamique, le jihadisme en est ainsi arrivé à représenter un défi protéiforme et véritablement global. Ciblesprivilégiées des forces jihadistes, les démocraties libérales occidentales ont dès lors répondu à ce challenge en s'engageant dans une « guerre contre le terrorisme » aux facettes multiples (interventions armées, mesures antiterroristes, etc.). Si plusieurs intellectuels d'extrême gauche, inscrits dans une perspective de critique du libéralisme politique, ont considéré, en s'inspirant de la réflexion de Carl Schmitt, que les États occidentaux contemporains sont plongés dans un étatd'exception permanent, dont la lutte contre le jihadisme a constitué soit le déclencheur, soit le révélateur, nous estimons pour notre part, que cette thèse ne permet tout simplement pas de se faire une idée exacte des retombées juridico-politiques de l'anti-jihadisme post-11 septembre. D'où la nécessité de la discuter en procédant à l'étude approfondie des éléments contextuels et principiels auxquels elle renvoie. / Outstanding event, September 11 attacks marked the entrance of the world politics to the era of the threat of the international jihadism. If the appearance of this threat is previous in 2001, the qaidiste attack committed against the United States indeed represented a large-scale qualitative jump, in the fact that it was synonymic of aggression committed by private actors at the heart of the cold postwar hyperpower, and in the fact that it constitued the starting point of a considerable development of the jihadist danger. From the spectacular destruction of the World Trade Center to the attacks of November 13th, via the kidnapping of the high school students of Chibok or the erection of the Islamic State, the jihadism came to represent a really global challenge, in the forms as diverse asvaried. Privileged targets of the Jihadist strengths, the western liberal democracies have then answered this challenge by making a commitment in a multifaceted ''war against the terrorism'' (military interventions, antiterrorist measures, etc.). If several extreme left-wing intellectuals, registered in a perspective of critic of the political liberalism, considered, by being inspired by Carl Schmitt's reflection, that the contemporary western States are plunged into a permanent state of exception, which the fight against the jihadism constitued either the trigger, or the revelation, we consider for our part, that this thesis does not simply allow to be made an exact idea of the legal and political effects of the post-September 11's anti-jihadism. Where from the necessity of discussing it by proceeding to the in-depth study of the context and the principles to which refers.

No description available.

This study examines the decision making process in Washington which led to the current non-existence of political and economic relations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States. The study examines the U.S.-Iran relationship at three levels-of-analysis: the individual, state, and system levels. From a geopolitical perspective, Iran and the United States have often been natural allies that pursued similar policy goals. After 9/11, the U.S. entered Afghanistan and Iraq which further necessitated the reengagement of Tehran. Iranian regional clout would play a vital role in stabilization of Iraq and Afghanistan and without Iran's assistance; peace will not likely be realized in those states. Amongst the most compelling reasons for Washington to engage in meaningful dialogue with Tehran are: terrorism, the war on drugs, the Iranian sponsorship of militant groups, and Tehran's pursuit of a nuclear program. The study concludes that rapprochement should occur in two phases. The first being cooperation in areas of mutual concern such as the war on drugs. The second phase promoting confidence building methods, which would lead to a strategic partnership based on mutual interests.

No description available.

Som ett resultat av attackerna mot USA den 11 september 2001 förklarade dåvarande president George W Bush krig mot terrorismen den 20 september samma år. Sex dagar senare undertecknade Bush ett direktiv vilket auktoriserade den civila amerikanska underrättelsetjänsten Central Intelligence Agency att utföra riktat dödande mot fördefinierade individer i syftet att förhindra nya attacker från terroristnätverket Al Qaeda, talibanerna och associerade styrkor. Bush initierade det amerikanska bruket av så kallade ”drone strikes” i anslutning till krigsförklaringen med intentionen att eliminera misstänkta terrorister utan möjlighet till en rättvis rättegång, Obama-administrationen har valt att fortsätta utöva policyn. Syftet med studien är att fastställa huruvida USA:s juridiska rättfärdigande och bruk av folkrätt i relation till genomförandet av riktat dödande och användandet av obemannade luftfarkoster i kriget mot terrorismen kan betraktas vara förenligt med doktrinen för just war theory och gällande internationell rätt. Vidare undersöker studien effekterna av det amerikanska bruket av folkrätten i relation till civilbefolkningen och den internationella humanitära rätten. Relevant lagtext och krigsetikens sedvanerättsliga principer jämförs med USA:s bruk av folkrätt för att fastställa agerandets legalitet. Vidare påvisar studien att programmet för riktat dödande inte kan anses vara förenligt med just war theory och gällande internationell lag och att bruket av drönare hamnar i konflikt med gällande internationell rätt i relation till hur de används under kriget mot terrorismen. / As a result of the attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001 then President George W Bush declared a war on terror. Six days later, Bush signed a directive which authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to carry out targeted killings against predefined individuals with the purpose to prevent any future attacks from the terrorist network Al Qaeda, as well as the Taliban and associated forces. In conjunction with the declaration of war president Bush initiated the American practice of so-called "drone strikes" with the intention to eliminate suspected terrorists without access to a fair trial, the practice has continued under the mandate of the Obama-administration. The aim of this study is to examine whether the US legal justification for the use of targeted killings and unmanned aerial vehicles in the war against terrorism can be regarded as compatible with the doctrine of just war theory and applicable international law. Furthermore, the study examines the effects of the US practice on international humanitarian customary law in relation to the civilian population. The U.S. justification of targeted killing is compared with international law to determine the lawfulness from a legal perspective. Furthermore, the study demonstrates that the practice is not compatible with the doctrine of just war theory and applicable international law. The use of drones violates international customary law in relation to how they are used under the current conflict.

The aim of this thesis is to answer the question whether the U.S. policy on targeted killings with combat drones is compatible with the legal doctrine of just war theory, applicable international law, and human rights law. Moreover, this paper intends to examine the legal issues arising from the U.S. practice of international law in relation to the justification of targeted killings. The purpose of this thesis is to determine whether the practice of targeted killings can be considered lawful and, if not, to provide knowledge about how the method violates applicable international law and the ethics of war. The focus is placed on relevant treaties and customary international law, and just war theory is used as a theoretical complement to explain the meaning and purpose of selected laws in order to determine their applicability to the research problem. Furthermore, this procedure has been conducted by using a legal method to identify the legal problem and interpret relevant sources of law in order to determine their applicability to the research problem. The thesis has determined that the U.S. policy on targeted killings with combat drones is not consistent with applicable international law and fundamental human rights law. In particular, the practice of targeted killings violates the principle of distinction.

This study examines the motivation factors that make some individuals (terrorists) confidential informants. The study is based on the assumptions of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theories. Accordingly, main assumption of the present study is that some individuals with unsatisfied needs in religion-abusing terrorist (RAT) networks choose to become confidential informants to satisfy their predominant needs. The main hypothesis for the purpose of this study is “The individuals’ decision-making processes to cooperate with law enforcement intelligence (LEI) as a confidential informant is affected by some motivation factors during recruitment process.” The present study tests 27 hypotheses in order to answer two main research questions. To meet its objectives the present study uses quantitative research methodology, constructs a cross-sectional research design, and employs secondary data analysis to test the hypotheses of the research questions. A dataset was formed based on official records of Turkish National Police by including all confidential informants within eight different RAT networks in Turkey. First, individual effect of each motivation factor on being a confidential informant is tested and discussed in detail. Then two group specific multivariate models for being an informant in Al-Qaeda and Turkish-Hezbollah are illustrated, compared and contrasted. Both bivariate and multivariate statistical analyses not only revealed the extent of individual effects of motivations among RAT groups, but also helped us to build fitting multivariate models that explain the probability of being informants in certain RAT networks. By doing so, the present study aims to make contributions to the literature and practice on this relatively unexplored phenomenon. Findings indicate that while some motivation factors are common among all RAT networks, the strength and direction of their effects vary among different RAT networks.

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.