Cette thèse, qui s’inscrit dans le vaste domaine des politiques publiques de sécurité, a pour objet de montrer la manière dont la sécurité s’est construite, au fil des alternances politiques. Plus précisément, cette étude consiste à montrer en quoi des mouvements politiques qu’idéologies et histoire séparent en arrivent, sur les questions d’ordre et de sécurité, à se rapprocher. La réponse à cette question se décompose en deux temps. Dans un premier temps, on démontre que la sécurité s’est traditionnellement construite, notamment dans les années 1970 et 1980, à partir d’idéologies encourageant divisions et clivages. La gauche et la droite, conformément à leurs principes, ont élaboré des politiques différentes, privilégiant tantôt les libertés individuelles, tantôt l’ordre et la sécurité. Dans un deuxième temps, l’étude s’attache à montrer que l’idéologie s’est progressivement effacée au profit d’un principe de réalité plutôt fédérateur. Au fil des développements, nous défendons l’idée d’un rapprochement entre droite et gauche qui conduit à penser et construire la sécurité selon des modes opératoires plus ou moins équivalents. L’exercice et l’expérience du pouvoir, le travail des experts et les recherches, les évolutions du monde ou tout simplement « l’épreuve de la réalité », véritable moment de vérité, placent les gouvernants de droite comme de gauche aux portes d'un consensus. Ces convergences permettront, espérons-le, de rassembler les énergies pour anticiper et mieux appréhender la criminalité de demain. / This dissertation, which is part of the broad field of public security policies, strives to show how security has been built over the political pendulum. More specifically, the purpose of this study is to show how the political movements, separated by ideologies and history, are getting closer on questions of order and security. The answer to this question breaks down in two stages. Firstly, we demonstrate that the security has traditionally been built, particularly in the 1970s and 1980s, from ideologies promoting divisions and cleavages. The left and the right, in accordance with their principles, often developed different policies, sometimes favoring individual liberty, sometimes law and order. In a second step, the study strives to show that ideology has gradually cleared in favor of the unifying principle of reality instead. Throughout the developments, we advocate the idea of a merger between the right and the left which leads to envision and construct security in a more or less similar way. The exercise of power and experience it brings, the work of experts and researchers, changes in the world, or merely "the challenge of reality", the real moment of truth, put the rulers of both right and left on the outskirts of a consensus. This convergence will, hopefully, bring together the energies to better understand and anticipate tomorrow’s criminality.

In the spring 2004 issue of WeltTrends, Gunther Hellmann sparked a debate on Germany's foreign policy. He argued that Germany’s international behaviour is dominated by a "realpolitik" policy, generally referred to as "normalization". For Hellmann, this transformation indicates one of the "deepest crisis of Germany’s foreign policy" ever. The first three parts were published in the summer, fall and winter editions (no. 43, 44 and 45) of WeltTrends, which featured contributions of German International Relations scholars as well as experts from abroad. <br>In this issue, foreign policy makers and a Polish expert join the debate.

Julia Rolandsdotter, Idéer om samhälle och individ: Abortdebatten under 1960- och 1970-tal med inriktning på realpolitik och ideologi, Uppsala Universitet: Institutionen för idé- och lärdomshistoria, C-uppsats, HT 2013. This essay aims to investigate and scrutinize the debate surrounding abortion during the years of 1964 and 1974 respectively. By analyzing elements of different opinions in the debate from daily press, a wide range of aspects concerning the issues of free abortion have been distinguishable. This analysis shows that the abortion debate was, to a high degree, a question of Realpolitik and ideology whereas the differences over time have been visible rather than the differences between parties of varying opinion. By applying the theories of Ian Hacking concerning the effects of categorization, ideas surrounding people and society among others, have been highlighted in the debate. In 1964 we see ideas about the woman as motherly or a victim and the society as defective or exposed among other factors. In 1974 on the other hand discussion about the free woman and the irresponsible society is very common.

Univ., Diss.--Frankfurt am Main, 2004. / Literaturverz. S. 181 - 191. - Bibliogr. A. L. von Rochau S. 193 - 205.

Thesis (doctoral)--Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt, 2004. / Includes bibliographical references.

In the spring issue of WeltTrends, Gunther Hellmann (Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe- Universität Frankfurt a. M.) sparked a debate on Germany’s foreign policy. He argued that Germany’s international behaviour is dominated by a Realpolitik policy generally referred to as "normalization". For Hellmann this transformation indicates "the deepest crisis of German foreign policy" ever. Hellmann proposes a rehabilitation of the tradition of the Bonner Republik and an active Idealpolitik.<br><br> This summer issue of WeltTrends features eleven articles written in response to Hellmann by International Relations scholars. The debate focuses on analytical as well as normative aspects of current German foreign policy. The authors discuss the context of the European Common Foreign and Security Policy, the international system and the United Nations, historical aspects of German foreign policy and the German foreign policy discourse. While some contributors share Hellmann's idealist position, most challenge his plea from a more realist perspective. In the upcoming fall issue, this debate will be continued with contributions by German foreign policy makers. A final reply by Hellmann will complete the debate in the winter issue of WeltTrends.<br> Contributions by: Franz Ansprenger, Stephan Böckenförde, Wilfried von Bredow, Sabine Busse, Edwina S. Campbell, Hartmut Elsenhans, Hans J. Gießmann, Werner Link, Carlo Masala, Hanns W. Maull, and Siegfried Schwarz.

In the spring issue of WeltTrends, Gunther Hellmann (Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe- Universität Frankfurt a. M.) sparked a debate on Germany's foreign policy. He argued that Germany’s international behaviour is dominated by a Realpolitik policy generally referred to as "normalization". For Hellmann this transformation indicates "the deepest crisis of German foreign policy" ever. Hellmann proposes a rehabilitation of the tradition of the Bonner Republik and an active Idealpolitik.<br><br> This summer issue of WeltTrends features eleven articles written in response to Hellmann by International Relations scholars. The debate focuses on analytical as well as normative aspects of current German foreign policy. The authors discuss the context of the European Common Foreign and Security Policy, the international system and the United Nations, historical aspects of German foreign policy and the German foreign policy discourse. While some contributors share Hellmann's idealist position, most challenge his plea from a more realist perspective. In the upcoming fall issue, this debate will be continued with contributions by German foreign policy makers. A final reply by Hellmann will complete the debate in the winter issue of WeltTrends.<br> Contributions by: Franz Ansprenger, Stephan Böckenförde, Wilfried von Bredow, Sabine Busse, Edwina S. Campbell, Hartmut Elsenhans, Hans J. Gießmann, Werner Link, Carlo Masala, Hanns W. Maull, and Siegfried Schwarz.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.