Search results

Du point de vue de l'analyse structurale basée sur la théorie du complexe de sécurité régionale, l'article analyse la question de savoir comment quelque chose devient une question de sécurité en Asie centrale. L'Asie centrale est considérée comme une formation régionale non structurée, ou « quasi-complexe de sécurité », dans laquelle les préoccupations de sécurité traditionnelles, telles que les rivalités inter-étatiques et le dilemme de sécurité, ne sont que partiellement applicables. Une telle situation donne lieu à des problèmes de sécurité liés à un manque de coordination entre les pays d'Asie centrale. Dans le même temps, les principales menaces et défis dans les pays d'Asie centrale sont essentiellement de nature interne, et sont la conséquence directe d'un État faible. Aux niveaux inter-régional et mondial, les défis de sécurité sont déterminés par le caractère périphérique de l'Asie centrale et par la transformation de la perception du droit international.

Presented on 15 May 2013 at the Policy Science Department Study Day of the University of Liège (Belgium). Security is both ubiquitous in public discourse and focused on criminal insecurity. Other uncertainties are largely concealed, such as health, housing, employment, normativity, affectivity or the environment. It is this configuration, between obsession and discursive focus, that will attract our attention. It seems to us that the security discourse has developed alongside another, broader one, which we call a mobilitarian ideology, based on the promotion of mobility for itself. Physical, professional, social, emotional or even religious or philosophical, mobility is seen as a positive value. In a society that perceives itself constantly and infinite, immobility is a mistake and mobility is the only salvage board for those who want to stay synchronous with their environment. Through the imperatives of activity, activation, participation and adaptation, the underlying ideology is pushing for widespread and unintended movement. Stability, consistency is presented as a barrier to access to perfect autonomy and freedom. Geographical anchoring, stable employment, permanence of couple and family, religious and philosophical affiliations and lifestyles are therefore unacceptable constraints. This discourse can be read as a valorisation of insecurity: as all the coordinates of the report to the world are constantly changing, it is no longer possible to rely on certainty, ensure safe zones and periods of safety. The imperative of mobility is therefore an imperative of insecurity. We will argue that it is in the mirror of this pressing ideology that a commitment to criminal insecurity is developing, both exuperating the anxieties caused by omnimobilisation and pushing it up, making it possible to continue to assert the legitimacy of mobility by a constituency of insecurity with its criminal dimension. ; Présenté le 15 mai 2013 lors de la journée d'étude du département de science politique de l'Université de Liège ...

Bien que l'Asie centrale demeure une région relativement stable, elle fait face à divers problèmes de sécurité : risque de radicalisation, terrorisme, affrontements ethniques, trafic de drogue et répercussions de l'Afghanistan. Zone d'influence de plus en plus disputée entre la Chine et la Russie, la sécurité y est assurée par un réseau de mécanismes bilatéraux ainsi que par les organisations régionales de sécurité (OTSC et OSC). En raison de la détérioration de l'économie russe et de la diminution de l'effet de levier sur les États d'Asie centrale, le rôle de l'OTSC se réduit. Depuis l'élargissement de l'OCS, la question se pose de savoir si l'organisation sera en mesure de continuer à servir de plate-forme de médiation entre les intérêts de la Chine et ceux de la Russie. Les deux pays, réticents à s'engager dans une coopération multilatérale à part entière, préfèrent leurs propres formes de coopération en matière de sécurité, tant avec les États de la région qu'entre eux. Ce filet de sécurité pourrait toutefois s'avérer insuffisant.

The economic growth of the private security sector has been relatively important during the 70s. This rapid but uncontrolled development has however generated important problems implicating private security personnel. In order to respond to these problems, the legislator was forced to regulate the sector through the law of July 12th 1983. Thirty years later, the 1983 law remains the sector's rules of reference. Today, threats on modern societies have evolved and become more violent. Furthermore, due to a lack of economic resources, public authorities have reduced the range of security mission they'll undertake to focus solely on high priority issues. As a consequence, new responsibilities have been transferred to private security actors. In this context, the safeguard of individual liberties appears has an important topic. For example, private security agents operating at airports have been granted rights (body check and luggage searches) that interfere with people's freedom. To regulate the sector's development, the legislator has created a structure to control these activities. Despite this effort, regulations remains insufficient especially has more missions are transferred by the State to private security actors. As a result, reinforcing training programs for these private actors constitute an important step towards maintaining people's rights. It is the reason behind the Legislator decision to include training programs in book VI of domestic security laws. Today, private security actors participate actively in domestic security missions alongside public security forces while respecting individual liberties. ; La sécurité privée a connu un développement économique relativement important dans les années 70. Cette montée en puissance incontrôlée a généré des faits graves impliquant des agents de sécurité privée. C'est à la suite de ces évènements que le législateur a été contraint de réguler une première fois cette activité par la loi du 12 juillet 1983. Cette loi reste 30 ans plus tard, la réglementation de ...

The economic growth of the private security sector has been relatively important during the 70s. This rapid but uncontrolled development has however generated important problems implicating private security personnel. In order to respond to these problems, the legislator was forced to regulate the sector through the law of July 12th 1983. Thirty years later, the 1983 law remains the sector's rules of reference. Today, threats on modern societies have evolved and become more violent. Furthermore, due to a lack of economic resources, public authorities have reduced the range of security mission they'll undertake to focus solely on high priority issues. As a consequence, new responsibilities have been transferred to private security actors. In this context, the safeguard of individual liberties appears has an important topic. For example, private security agents operating at airports have been granted rights (body check and luggage searches) that interfere with people's freedom. To regulate the sector's development, the legislator has created a structure to control these activities. Despite this effort, regulations remains insufficient especially has more missions are transferred by the State to private security actors. As a result, reinforcing training programs for these private actors constitute an important step towards maintaining people's rights. It is the reason behind the Legislator decision to include training programs in book VI of domestic security laws. Today, private security actors participate actively in domestic security missions alongside public security forces while respecting individual liberties. ; La sécurité privée a connu un développement économique relativement important dans les années 70. Cette montée en puissance incontrôlée a généré des faits graves impliquant des agents de sécurité privée. C'est à la suite de ces évènements que le législateur a été contraint de réguler une première fois cette activité par la loi du 12 juillet 1983. Cette loi reste 30 ans plus tard, la réglementation de ...

The economic growth of the private security sector has been relatively important during the 70s. This rapid but uncontrolled development has however generated important problems implicating private security personnel. In order to respond to these problems, the legislator was forced to regulate the sector through the law of July 12th 1983. Thirty years later, the 1983 law remains the sector's rules of reference. Today, threats on modern societies have evolved and become more violent. Furthermore, due to a lack of economic resources, public authorities have reduced the range of security mission they'll undertake to focus solely on high priority issues. As a consequence, new responsibilities have been transferred to private security actors. In this context, the safeguard of individual liberties appears has an important topic. For example, private security agents operating at airports have been granted rights (body check and luggage searches) that interfere with people's freedom. To regulate the sector's development, the legislator has created a structure to control these activities. Despite this effort, regulations remains insufficient especially has more missions are transferred by the State to private security actors. As a result, reinforcing training programs for these private actors constitute an important step towards maintaining people's rights. It is the reason behind the Legislator decision to include training programs in book VI of domestic security laws. Today, private security actors participate actively in domestic security missions alongside public security forces while respecting individual liberties. ; La sécurité privée a connu un développement économique relativement important dans les années 70. Cette montée en puissance incontrôlée a généré des faits graves impliquant des agents de sécurité privée. C'est à la suite de ces évènements que le législateur a été contraint de réguler une première fois cette activité par la loi du 12 juillet 1983. Cette loi reste 30 ans plus tard, la réglementation de ...

The economic growth of the private security sector has been relatively important during the 70s. This rapid but uncontrolled development has however generated important problems implicating private security personnel. In order to respond to these problems, the legislator was forced to regulate the sector through the law of July 12th 1983. Thirty years later, the 1983 law remains the sector's rules of reference. Today, threats on modern societies have evolved and become more violent. Furthermore, due to a lack of economic resources, public authorities have reduced the range of security mission they'll undertake to focus solely on high priority issues. As a consequence, new responsibilities have been transferred to private security actors. In this context, the safeguard of individual liberties appears has an important topic. For example, private security agents operating at airports have been granted rights (body check and luggage searches) that interfere with people's freedom. To regulate the sector's development, the legislator has created a structure to control these activities. Despite this effort, regulations remains insufficient especially has more missions are transferred by the State to private security actors. As a result, reinforcing training programs for these private actors constitute an important step towards maintaining people's rights. It is the reason behind the Legislator decision to include training programs in book VI of domestic security laws. Today, private security actors participate actively in domestic security missions alongside public security forces while respecting individual liberties. ; La sécurité privée a connu un développement économique relativement important dans les années 70. Cette montée en puissance incontrôlée a généré des faits graves impliquant des agents de sécurité privée. C'est à la suite de ces évènements que le législateur a été contraint de réguler une première fois cette activité par la loi du 12 juillet 1983. Cette loi reste 30 ans plus tard, la réglementation de ...

Sans réelle stratégie et peut-être sans y réfléchir, l'Europe a réussi à s'insérer de façon globale dans la région, ce qui inclut tout aussi bien les sanctions les plus dures à l'encontre de la Corée du Nord et le soutien à des initiatives régionales en faveur de la réconciliation et de la coopération entre la Chine, le Japon et la Corée du Sud. Une telle approche – trop souvent scrutée – mérite une plus sérieuse prise en compte car elle pourrait aider les décideurs de la région à traiter la menace nord-coréenne et le nationalisme grandissant qui pose un risque à la paix et à la stabilité de l'Asie du Nord-Est.

Short presentation of security policies in France since the early 2000s and prospects for possible policies in the second decade of the same century. ; International audience ; Short presentation of security policies in France since the early 2000s and prospects for possible policies in the second decade of the same century. ; Présentation succincte des politiques de sécurité menées en France depuis le début des années 2000 et perspectives sur les politiques envisageables à l'orée de la deuxième décennie du même siècle.

Résumé La mise en place d'une politique très innovante de homeland security (sécurité territoriale) est la réponse, sur le plan domestique, de l'administration américaine aux attaques du 11 Septembre. Il s'agit d'un bouleversement politico-administratif profond qui rappelle les grandes réformes de l'après guerre dans les domaines de la défense et de la sécurité nationale et dont les répercussions en matière de politique étrangère, et donc pour le reste du monde, sont significatives. Mais la politique de sécurité territoriale manque de cohérence conceptuelle et d'efficacité organisationnelle.