• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >Speaking Law to War: International Law, Legal Advisers, and Bureaucratic Contestation in U.S. Defense Policy.
【24h】

Speaking Law to War: International Law, Legal Advisers, and Bureaucratic Contestation in U.S. Defense Policy.

机译：讲战争法：国际法，法律顾问和美国国防政策中的官僚主义争夺。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

On September 6, 2006, President George W. Bush declared that the so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" program "has saved lives" and "remains vital to the security of the United States, and our friends and allies." Yet, the President's speech marked the closing of the CIA's secret prisons where detainees had been routinely tortured. By the end of the Bush administration, every component of the torture program had been reformed, replaced, or revoked in a way that more closely aligned with the United States' international legal obligations. Why did the Bush administration increasingly adhere to the laws governing the treatment of prisoners of war, even though it believed that doing so would constrain its ability to save American lives? More broadly, under what conditions are states most likely to adhere to the anti-torture provisions found in the laws of armed conflict and human rights law during war?;In order to answer these questions, I advance a new theoretical framework, called legalized bureaucratic politics, that emphasizes the degree to which six US national security bureaucracies---the White House Counsel, the National Security Council, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, the State Department, the Defense Department, and the Central Intelligence Agency---have institutionalized international law into their approval process, training, legal advice, and organizational culture. Once the degree of legal institutionalization has been identified, legalized bureaucratic politics involves four steps: intra-agency, inter-agency, operational, and review phase, where adversarial actors will compete for control over wartime management.;I test my theory by comparing two cases where the US used torture: the Vietnam War and the Global War on Terror. My findings show that the US legal institutional structure during the Vietnam War was too weak to eliminate the use of torture by US personnel throughout the war. During the Global War on Terror, the US experienced a medium degree of legal institutionalization, too weak to prevent the torture program from being initiated, but strong enough to reverse it.
机译：2006年9月6日，布什总统宣布所谓的“增强讯问技巧”计划“挽救了生命”，并且“对美国以及我们的朋友和盟国的安全仍然至关重要”。然而，总统的讲话标志着中央情报局秘密监狱的关闭，在这些监狱中，被拘留者经常受到酷刑。到布什政府结束时，对酷刑计划的每个组成部分都进行了改革，替换或废除，以使其与美国的国际法律义务更加接近。布什政府为什么为什么越来越坚持管理战俘待遇的法律，尽管它相信这样做会限制其挽救美国生命的能力？更广泛地说，在什么条件下，国家最有可能遵守战争期间武装冲突法和人权法中的反酷刑规定？；为了回答这些问题，我提出了一个新的理论框架，称为合法化的官僚主义政治方面，强调了六个美国国家安全官僚机构的程度-白宫法律顾问，国家安全委员会，司法部法律顾问办公室，国务院，国防部和中央情报局-已将国际法制度化到其批准程序，培训，法律咨询和组织文化中。一旦确定了法律制度化的程度，合法化的官僚政治就涉及四个步骤：机构内部，机构间，业务和审查阶段，在此阶段，敌对行为者将争夺对战时管理的控制权。美国遭受酷刑的案例：越南战争和全球反恐战争。我的发现表明，越南战争期间的美国法律制度结构太弱，无法消除整个战争期间美国人员使用酷刑的情况。在全球反恐战争期间，美国经历了中等程度的法律制度化，虽然太弱了以至于无法启动酷刑计划，但足以扭转这种状况。

著录项

  • 作者

    Jimenez Bacardi, Arturo.;

  • 作者单位

    University of California, Irvine.;

  • 授予单位 University of California, Irvine.;
  • 学科 International law.;International relations.;Political science.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2015
  • 页码 278 p.
  • 总页数 278
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号