Suchergebnisse

USA hadde ingen doktriner for opprørsbekjempelse (COIN) da operasjonene i Afghanistan og Irak startet. Mens krigene pågikk ble det, til tross for stor uenighet, innført en slik doktrine i 2007. Krigene førte også til både endringer i organisering og utrustning av amerikanske styrker, og til store endringer av planlagte investeringer av militært ustyr. Begge krigene endte i nederlag, og i tiden etter har USA på ny fokusert på stormaktsrivalisering. Men utgiftene til krigføringen i Afghanistan og Irak, og endringene i investeringsmønster, har svekket USAs evne til å konkurrere militært med Kina og Russland.
Abstract in EnglishAfghanistan, Iraq and the Development of US Military PowerThe United States had no doctrine for Counterinsurgency Operations (COIN) when the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq started in 2001 and 2003, respectively. In 2001 the US armed forces were designed for Great Power competition and conflict. During the course of the wars, substantial changes were made in the organization and equipment of the forces, and a COIN doctrine was introduced in 2007. In turn, large scale modernization of, and investments in, equipment suited for Great Power conflict were reduced in scale or cancelled. The cost of the wars and the changes in operational focus have blunted the US's ability to compete militarily with China and Russia.

The United States and its allies based their legal basis for the 2003 war against Iraq on Security Council authorisation. Over time, the principal justifications originally given for the war have lost much of their force. The United States and their allies have toyed with the idea of other possible factors on which this war could be justified. They are: self-defence, the war on terrorism and Humanitarian Intervention. It is important to note that as the allies justification is based on United Nations Security Council authorisation, and not the other issues discussed below, they cannot be held legally liable under any of the below . The dispute about the legitimacy of the Iraq war is not just an academic issue. It is quite possible that serious political problems could emerge for a number of Governments. This analysis will seek to elucidate and weight up all the salient issues and arrive at a rational and objective view.

This edition of the laws promulgated by successive Anglo-Saxon rulers over a period of five centuries was published in three volumes between 1903 and 1916 by the German historian Felix Lieberman (1851-1925), and is still regarded as authoritative. This unique body of early medieval legal writing, unparalleled in other Germanic languages, provides valuable source material for scholars of Old English and of legal history, and Lieberman's thorough engagement with the manuscripts has never been surpassed. His preface explains that owing to factors such as the extreme variability of Old English orthography, and the existence of both Latin and Old English versions of the same material, a traditional edition using just one base manuscript with a critical apparatus would have been too unwieldy. Volume 1 introduces the manuscripts, and gives several parallel versions of each text in Old English and Latin with a facing translation into modern German. Frederick Attenborough's The Laws of the Early English Kings (1922) is also reissued in this series

Security of e-projecting a surveying structure systems does not just depend on the democratic protocol1 or the software used yet concerns the whole system with every one of its components. To guarantee security a widely inclusive methodology, which considers all pieces of an especially complex system, ought to be chosen. The security of an election system can't be ensured unless every single element and its security related characteristics, interfaces to other elements, and their effect on the whole system are examined. This paper presents the E-Voting System Security Optimization method, which is based on such a methodology and was developed to evaluate the security of e-projecting a voting structure systems. This method brings up security defects, shows security advancement potential, and can be used to compare different election systems. The methodology differs from other approaches to the extent that it uses a comprehensive methodology, visualizes the security circumstance of an e-projecting a surveying structure system clearly, and shows its potential for improvement.