Includes supplemental material. / Disaster relief operations, such as the 2005 Tsunami and Hurricane Katrina, and wartime operations, such as Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, have identified the need for a standardized command and control system interoperable among Joint, Coalition, and Interagency entities. The Systems Engineering Analysis Cohort 9 (SEA-9) Rapid Response Command and Control (R2C2) integrated project team completed a systems engineering (SE) process to address the military’s command and control capability gap. During the process, the R2C2 team conducted mission analysis, generated requirements, developed and modeled architectures, and analyzed and compared current operational systems versus the team’s R2C2 system. The R2C2 system provided a reachback capability to the Regional Combatant Commander’s (RCC) headquarters, a local communications network for situational assessments, and Internet access for civilian counterparts participating in Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief operations. Because the team designed the R2C2 system to be modular, analysis concluded that the R2C2 system was the preferred method to provide the RCC with the required flexibility and scalability to deliver a rapidly deployable command and control capability to perform the range of military operations.

The permissible use of defensive force is a central tenet of the traditional legal and philosophical justification for war and its practice. Just War Theory holds a nation’s right to resist aggressive attack with defensive force as the clearest example of a just cause for war. Just War Theory also stipulates norms for warfare derived from a conception of defensive force asserted to be consistent with the moral reality of war. Recently, these aspects of Just War Theory have been criticized. David Rodin has challenged the status of national defense as an uncontroversial just cause. Jeff McMahan has charged that Just War Theory’s norms that govern warfare are inconsistent with the norms of permissive defensive force. In this thesis I defend the status of national defense as a clear case of a just cause. However, my defense may require revision of Just War Theory’s norms that govern warfare.

As a result of the conflict in eastern Ukraine, there are at present hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian Donbass War veterans who participated in the Anti-Terrorist Operation (ATO) and Joint Forces Operation (JFO) who must now reintegrate into civilian life. Despite the great number of veterans who need to be reintegrated socially, politically, and economically into Ukrainian society, there is currently no comprehensive policy for ex-combatant reintegration in Ukraine. Applying the concept of social capital and based on interviews, observations, and documents, this qualitative case study investigates the nature and the role of social resources in ATO/JFO veterans’ social, political, and economic reintegration in Odessa. The analysis revealed that in the lack of social trust, social cohesion, shared values, and generalized reciprocity within the wider society, veterans’ ability to generate bridging social ties were undermined. On the other hand, widespread norms of trust, particularistic reciprocity, cohesion, and solidarity within the veteran networks made research participants to rely more on their bonding social ties among veterans. The study also finds that in the absence of overarching reintegration programs, veterans’ bonding social ties contributed significantly to all spheres of their reintegration. Despite the inward-looking nature of bonding social capital that tends to reinforce exclusive identities and homogeneous groups, all veterans to varied extent describe their bonding social ties with former military comrades as an important factor in facilitating social, political, and economic reintegration.

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.

Ce mémoire s’intéresse aux récits des ex-combattants des groupes paramilitaires Autodéfenses unies de Colombie sur leur participation au conflit armé. Ces narrations, construites dans un contexte de réintégration à la société, permettent de réfléchir à la construction de la vérité par les ex-combattants dans les contextes post-conflit. Nous avons analysé les histoires de vie de 18 ex-combattants qui participaient au Programme de réintégration à la vie civile à Bogota. Nos interviewés ont adopté une position de victimes, en élaborant des discours justificateurs visant à se déresponsabiliser. Ces discours montrent une normalisation de la violence qui revient à la notion de « banalité du mal » d’Hannah Arendt. Nos interviewés ont employé plusieurs rhétoriques des groupes paramilitaires afin de justifier la violence. Ces rhétoriques font partie de la construction psychologique de l’ennemi par les groupes et elles invitent à analyser le rôle du langage dans la construction d’une culture paramilitaire. Néanmoins, certains interviewés ont condamné la violence exercée par leur groupe. Nous avons observé qu’il existe plusieurs interprétations de la manière dont nos interviewés disaient avoir réagi aux contextes de violence de masse, ce qui nous a amenés à réfléchir aux notions de culpabilité morale et juridique. / This paper studies the interpretations of the ex-combatants of the paramilitary groups United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia about their participation in the internal conflict. These discourses, created in a context of social reintegration, are used to discuss the recreation of the truth brought by the ex-combatants in post-conflict contexts. We analyzed the life stories of 18 ex-combatants who were part of the reintegration to civil life Program held in Bogota. Our interviewees have adopted a position of victims, creating discourses of legitimation of the violence in order to avoid the according responsability. In there, it suggests a normalization of violence, remembering the concept of the “banality of evil” brought by Hannah Arendt. Our interviewees have used the paramilitary rhetoric to justify violence. This rhetoric belongs to the psychological construction of the enemy by the groups and it reveals the role of language in the construction of a paramilitary culture. Although, we found that there are other interpretations that don’t concede and justify violence. There are different interpretations of their reactions in the contexts of mass violence. From there we discussed the notions of moral and legal guilty. / Esta investigación se interesa por las interpretaciones de los excombatientes de los grupos paramilitares Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia sobre su participación en el conflicto armado interno. Estas narraciones, creadas en un contexto de reintegración social, permiten reflexionar sobre la construcción de la verdad por los excombatientes en los contextos post-conflicto. Analizamos las historias de vida de 18 excombatientes que participaban en el Programa de Reintegración a la Vida Civil en Bogotá. Nuestros entrevistados adoptaron una posición de víctimas, construyendo discursos justificatorios buscando des-responsabilizarse. Estos discursos muestran una normalización de la violencia que recuerdan la noción de “banalidad del mal” de Hannah Arendt. Nuestros entrevistados emplearon varias retóricas de los grupos paramilitares para justificar la violencia. Estas retóricas hacen parte de la construcción psicológica del enemigo por los grupos e invitan a analizar el rol del lenguaje en la construcción de una cultura paramilitar. Sin embargo, no todos utilizaron discursos justificatorios. Encontramos que existen varias interpretaciones de la manera en que nuestros entrevistados decían haber reaccionado a los contextos de violencia de masa, lo cual nos condujo a reflexionar sobre las nociones de culpabilidad moral y jurídica.

Ce mémoire s’intéresse aux récits des ex-combattants des groupes paramilitaires Autodéfenses unies de Colombie sur leur participation au conflit armé. Ces narrations, construites dans un contexte de réintégration à la société, permettent de réfléchir à la construction de la vérité par les ex-combattants dans les contextes post-conflit. Nous avons analysé les histoires de vie de 18 ex-combattants qui participaient au Programme de réintégration à la vie civile à Bogota. Nos interviewés ont adopté une position de victimes, en élaborant des discours justificateurs visant à se déresponsabiliser. Ces discours montrent une normalisation de la violence qui revient à la notion de « banalité du mal » d’Hannah Arendt. Nos interviewés ont employé plusieurs rhétoriques des groupes paramilitaires afin de justifier la violence. Ces rhétoriques font partie de la construction psychologique de l’ennemi par les groupes et elles invitent à analyser le rôle du langage dans la construction d’une culture paramilitaire. Néanmoins, certains interviewés ont condamné la violence exercée par leur groupe. Nous avons observé qu’il existe plusieurs interprétations de la manière dont nos interviewés disaient avoir réagi aux contextes de violence de masse, ce qui nous a amenés à réfléchir aux notions de culpabilité morale et juridique. / This paper studies the interpretations of the ex-combatants of the paramilitary groups United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia about their participation in the internal conflict. These discourses, created in a context of social reintegration, are used to discuss the recreation of the truth brought by the ex-combatants in post-conflict contexts. We analyzed the life stories of 18 ex-combatants who were part of the reintegration to civil life Program held in Bogota. Our interviewees have adopted a position of victims, creating discourses of legitimation of the violence in order to avoid the according responsability. In there, it suggests a normalization of violence, remembering the concept of the “banality of evil” brought by Hannah Arendt. Our interviewees have used the paramilitary rhetoric to justify violence. This rhetoric belongs to the psychological construction of the enemy by the groups and it reveals the role of language in the construction of a paramilitary culture. Although, we found that there are other interpretations that don’t concede and justify violence. There are different interpretations of their reactions in the contexts of mass violence. From there we discussed the notions of moral and legal guilty. / Esta investigación se interesa por las interpretaciones de los excombatientes de los grupos paramilitares Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia sobre su participación en el conflicto armado interno. Estas narraciones, creadas en un contexto de reintegración social, permiten reflexionar sobre la construcción de la verdad por los excombatientes en los contextos post-conflicto. Analizamos las historias de vida de 18 excombatientes que participaban en el Programa de Reintegración a la Vida Civil en Bogotá. Nuestros entrevistados adoptaron una posición de víctimas, construyendo discursos justificatorios buscando des-responsabilizarse. Estos discursos muestran una normalización de la violencia que recuerdan la noción de “banalidad del mal” de Hannah Arendt. Nuestros entrevistados emplearon varias retóricas de los grupos paramilitares para justificar la violencia. Estas retóricas hacen parte de la construcción psicológica del enemigo por los grupos e invitan a analizar el rol del lenguaje en la construcción de una cultura paramilitar. Sin embargo, no todos utilizaron discursos justificatorios. Encontramos que existen varias interpretaciones de la manera en que nuestros entrevistados decían haber reaccionado a los contextos de violencia de masa, lo cual nos condujo a reflexionar sobre las nociones de culpabilidad moral y jurídica.

No description available.