Search

A conference paper about security relationship between India and the U.S., prepared for the Southern Political Science Association Annual Meeting held in Orlando, Florida in 2012, is presented. Topics discussed include common concerns of both the nations over Islamic radicalism and terrorism, increase in India's military cooperation with the U.S., and India's antipathy to American hegemony. Also mentions about the economic interdependence and population flows between both nations.

In light of the United States' recently elevated attention to terrorism, the issue of national security has become of great importance to the American public in recent years. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) is one of the most significant courts in the judiciary to deal with such issues. Curiously, the business of the court is very different in comparison to other federal courts. The problem is attempting to balance important national security issues with ensuring that civil rights are not violated due to the secret nature of the court. The paper delves into analyzing known functions of the court, reasons for secrecy, structural issues, the quasi-executive nature, affects of the Patriot Act,wiretapping issues and purpose as stated in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. In doing so, we reveal problems that arise with lack of oversight, the non-adversarial process, the structure of the court, ex parte opinions, and the constitutional and civil liberties issues in general. We believe the court could be structured otherwise and still achieve national security objectives. Among the suggestions are using a panel of judges, a Special Amicus to represent the accused, and doing away with the current appeals process the court has. Our arguments are normative due to the secrecy of the court, and our suggestions will promote legitimacy and accountability within the FISA Court. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Constructivist theories of securitization are built on a foundation of communicative action tenets. While this represents an important and innovative advance in international relations theory, securitization ignores some of the components involved in a successful communicative act. Williams (2003) calls for securitization theory to incorporate the hitherto ignored effects of mass media and in this paper we answer this call. We first show that securitization's specification of leaders' speech acts and audiences' legitimative discourse presumes mass media actors are indifferent in how they convey leader representations and justifications of crises. We take this presumption as an empirical question and execute a study of whether the national presses of ally countries differently emphasized the frames Bush invoked in their news coverage of key September 11th speeches. We show from comparisons of chi-square distributions and regression analyses that, far from being passive conveyers of speech frames, the national presses of the US, Canada, France, Britain and Ireland (1) did not convey all of Bush's securitizing problem representations and response justifications proportionate to the extent Bush invoked them in his speeches, and (2) that for each national press factors based on professional norms and/or organizational routines increased the likelihood that a speech sentence would be conveyed in a news story. We discuss the implications of our findings for how securitization theory should conceptualize media actors when redressing this gap in its explanatory models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United States, United Kingdom and other nations implemented national security policies and operations after 9/11 that revealed a gap between capabilities and insecurity, and established a gap between counter-terrorism operations and international human rights law. For example, when states prosecute or detain suspected terrorists they often due so on the basis of secret evidence. This creates a gap between the state's national security operations and international human rights law protections. I examine how the U.S. and U.K. have challenged fair trial rights when prosecuting alleged terrorists and how domestic, regional and international courts have responded. I demonstrate that international human rights law severely limits governments from prosecuting and detaining terrorism suspects based on secret evidence. Based on this law, I propose rules to attain a balance between national security and fair trial rights. These would narrow the gap between national security operations and international law, and in turn narrow the gap between capabilities and insecurity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Independent judiciaries serve as important stopgaps against democratic reversals and can help facilitate peaceful transitions of power essential to democratic survival. An independent judiciary is an important institution that legitimates democracy among citizens. What, then, explains legitimacy of an independent judiciary itself? Past scholarship argues citizens lose faith in an independent judiciary when the judiciary is corrupt or when it fails to deliver procedural fairness in legal matters. I argue that citizens living under conditions of high terror threat lose confidence in independent judiciaries even when the judiciary is honest and fair. Terror threats lead citizens to enable the state leader to provide for their security and defeat the source of terrorism. These have important implications for inter-branch relations between the executive branch and the judicial branch. As a result, citizens living under terror threats lose confidence in independent judiciaries that provide due process for suspected terrorists. I test my argument with a mixed effects models that incorporate the Global Terrorism Database and two waves of European Values Survey. The analyses demonstrate the negative effects of terror threats on judicial confidence when interacting terror threats with measures of judicial independence. My findings have important implications for the study of democratic confidence and the liberty-security dilemma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents an institutional analysis of foreign policy making since September 11, 2001 in the U.S. Discussion on who is in charge of U.S. national security policy; Impact of the terrorist attacks on the balance of power; Information on developments that resulted from the terror attacks in September 11, 2001 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; Role of the executive branch with President George W. Bush and his advisors in leading the national security policy.

The end of the Cold War brought about fundamental changes for the U.S. defense industry. Faced with reduced military spending, the industry has relied on rapid consolidation and government assistance in the form of subsidies, tax breaks, and the opening of foreign markets that were traditionally off-limits to grow and prosper in the post-Cold War world. The U.S. has since become the largest supplier of weapons to the developing world. Given this strategy of targeting foreign markets, it is increasingly important to examine the possible consequences - both in terms of U.S. national security and the socioeconomic conditions within’ the importing state. This study uses cross-sectional time-series data to analyze the relationship between U.S. arms transfers and stability in the developing world. A nonrecursive multiple-equation model is constructed composed of three endogenous variables to define political and social stability. U.S. arms transfers along with fourteen control variables are used to explain variation in the endogenous variables. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]