Suchergebnisse

This thesis seeks to understand the factors that drove the Australian Parliament's response to exceptional national security laws proposed in times of 'crisis'. It employs case studies, doctrinal analysis, legal history, and literature relating to emergency laws. It selects two periods of 'crisis' for study - the Cold War and the 'War on Terror' - and examines the passage of the Communist Party Dissolution Act 1950 (Cth), the Security Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Act 2002 (Cth) and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Act 2003 (Cth). Parliamentarians viewed the related Bills as extraordinary legislative proposals designed for extraordinary or emergency times or situations. These characterisations suggested that the work of legal scholar Oren Gross could, potentially, throw light on Parliament's legislative processes. Gross has written extensively on law in times of crisis. He hypothesises that a number of factors work towards our acceptance of exceptional laws. The first is the assumption of constitutionality - our belief that such laws fall within the bounds of constitutional and legal norms. The second is the assumption of separation. This assumption includes our belief that emergency laws will be temporary, that they will apply to 'others' not to 'us', and that national security is a separate sphere about which we defer to the Executive Government. The thesis explores whether Parliament's response to proposals for national security laws can be explained in terms of Gross's assumptions of constitutionality and separation. It uses Hansard to examine whether and, if so, how Parliament engaged with constitutional and legal norms and whether the transcripts of debate reveal evidence of Gross's assumption of separation. My analysis suggests that Gross's assumptions provide a partial explanation of the factors that drove the Australian Parliament when it was presented with Bills for exceptional national security laws. It also reveals the influence of other factors ...

National security includes political, economic, military, informative and environmental stability of a state, a condition in which there are no serious threats and dangers to a survival of a state, its independent, territorial integrity and constitutional-legal order and life, rights and freedoms of its citizens and healthy environment (condition of safety). Within the framework of the thesis, the author scientifically and theoretically is determining the term national security. In modern conditions the question is being asked "Is it necessary or not a scientific defining of the term national security and if it is necessary, how is this possible to make on a generally acceptable way, because there are serious disputes in the scientific circles for the content of the term definition of security given the wide range of the content, elements, events and relationships in the social, natural and the technical sphere, that this term is required to cover"? There will be given determinations from domestic and foreign authors, and determinations given in the National strategies for security of the Republic of Macedonia, Serbia, Croatia and Montenegro. Keywords: security, national security, national strategy for security

In an Introduction to this special journal issue, Jay Stanley (Towson State U, MD) describes six problematic areas of national security addressed by contributors: the rule of law, decision making, social influence, the media, conscientious objection, & nuclear weapons. In National Security and Democracy: The United Kingdom Experience, Christopher Dandeker (King's Coll, London WC2R 2LS England) analyzes the development of the British national security system, emphasizing the impact of external factors relating to the preparation & conduct of war & internal factors relating to industrial conflict & terrorism. In National Security and Democracy in the United States of America, David R. Segal (U of Maryland, College Park) assesses the US's attempts to balance democratic values against national security interests, which have at times intruded on the rule of law, individual freedoms, & popular participation in policy making. In National Security and Democracy: The Dilemma from a French Perspective, Michel Louis Martin (U of Antilles-Guyane) finds that the French juridical system has helped balance national security interests & democratic principles without too much difficulty while also managing to protect civil rights. Adapted from the source document.

Cover -- Half Title -- Series Page -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Dedication -- Table of Contents -- Series editor introduction -- Acknowledgments -- List of Abbreviations -- Introduction -- New direction of Japan's national security policy from the 2000s and toward China -- Questions of Japan's domestic credibility -- The plan of this book -- Notes -- Chapter 1: Domestic credibility innational security -- Introduction -- The feeling of safety as a subjective element in national security -- The linkage between domestic politics and national security

This article considers the post–September 11 challenges faced by the U.S. national security machinery and analyzes the relationship between the new threat environment, the United States's role in the world, and decision–making structure. Homeland security is defined as a subset of national security. The threat of foreign terrorist organizations acting on U.S. soil should be seen in the political context of the pursuit of U.S. national interests in an often anarchic world. Two models for homeland security organizational structures are considered: a departmental model and an interagency model. The interagency model, embodied in the Homeland Security Council, is a better fit given the nature of the threat, the crucial need for coordination, and the realities of governmental decision making. The organizational challenges that may complicate the government's preparations, decisions, and implementation of a major homeland defense mission stem from three rivalries: executive–legislative, cabinet–staff, and Homeland Security Council–National Security Council.