To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: National security Israel United States.
Journal articles on the topic 'National security Israel United States'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'National security Israel United States.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Slater, Jerome. "Muting the Alarm over the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: The New York Times versus Haaretz, 2000–06." International Security 32, no. 2 (October 2007): 84–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/isec.2007.32.2.84.
Full textAbstract:
The prospects for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remain poor, largely because of Israeli rigidity as well as Palestinian policies and internal conflicts. The United States has failed to use its considerable influence with Israel to seek the necessary changes in Israeli policies, instead providing the country with almost unconditional support. The consequences have been disastrous for the Palestinians, for Israeli security and society, and for critical U.S. national interests in the Middle East. Amajor explanation for the failure of U.S. policies is the largely uninformed and uncritical mainstream and even elite media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the United States. In contrast, the debate in Israel is more self-critical, vigorous, and far-ranging, creating at least the possibility of change, even as U.S. policy stagnates. Acomparison of the coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by the two most prestigious daily newspapers in the United States and Israel—in particular, over the breakdown of the peace process in 2000 and the ensuing Palestinian intifada, the nature of the Israeli occupation, the problem of violence and terrorism, and the prospects for peace today—underscores these differences. While the New York Times has muted the alarm over the dangers of the United States' near-unconditional support for Israeli policies toward the Palestinians, Haaretz has sought to sound the alarm.
2
Fuller, Graham E. "Freedom and Security." American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 22, no. 3 (July 1, 2005): 21–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.35632/ajiss.v22i3.466.
Full textAbstract:
The DebateQuestion 1: Various commentators have frequently invoked the importance of moderate Muslims and the role that they can play in fighting extremism in the Muslim world. But it is not clear who is a moderate Muslim. The recent cancellation of Tariq Ramadan’s visa to the United States, the raids on several American Muslim organizations, and the near marginalization of mainstream American Muslims in North America pose the following question: If moderate Muslims are critical to an American victory in the war on terror, then why does the American government frequently take steps that undermine moderate Muslims? Perhaps there is a lack of clarity about who the moderate Muslims are. In your view, who are these moderate Muslims and what are their beliefs and politics?
GEF: Who is a moderate Muslim? That depends on whom you ask and what that person’s (or government’s) agenda is. Moderate is also a quite relative term, understood differently by different people. For our purposes here, let’s examine two basically different approaches to this question: an American view and a Middle Eastern view of what characterizes a moderate Muslim. Most non-Muslims would probably define a moderate Muslim as anyone who believes in democracy, tolerance, a non-violent approach to politics, and equitable treatment of women at the legal and social levels. Today, the American government functionally adds several more criteria: Amoderate Muslim is one who does not oppose the country’s strategic and geopolitical ambitions in the world, who accepts American interests and preferences within the world order, who believes that Islam has no role in politics, and who avoids any confrontation – even political – with Israel. There are deep internal contradictions and warring priorities within the American approach to the Muslim world. While democratization and “freedom” is the Bush administration’s self-proclaimed global ideological goal, the reality is that American demands for security and the war against terror take priority over the democratization agenda every time. Democratization becomes a punishment visited upon American enemies rather than a gift bestowed upon friends. Friendly tyrants take priority over those less cooperative moderate and democratic Muslims who do not acquiesce to the American agenda in the Muslim world. Within the United States itself, the immense domestic power of hardline pro-Likud lobbies and the Israel-firsters set the agenda on virtually all discourse concerning the Muslim world and Israel. This group has generally succeeded in excluding from the public dialogue most Muslim (or even non-Muslim) voices that are at all critical of Israel’s policies. This de facto litmus test raises dramatically the threshold for those who might represent an acceptable moderate Muslim interlocutor. The reality is that there is hardly a single prominent figure in the Muslim world who has not at some point voiced anger at Israeli policies against the Palestinians and who has not expressed ambivalence toward armed resistance against the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. Thus, few Muslim leaders enjoying public legitimacy in the Muslim world can meet this criterion these days in order to gain entry to the United States to participate in policy discussions. In short, moderate Muslimis subject to an unrealistic litmus test regarding views on Israel that functionally excludes the great majority of serious voices representative of genuine Muslim thinkers in the Middle East who are potential interlocutors. There is no reason to believe that this political framework will change in the United States anytime soon. In my view, a moderate Muslim is one who is open to the idea of evolutionary change through history in the understanding and practice of Islam, one who shuns literalism and selectivism in the understanding of sacred texts. Amoderate would reject the idea that any one group or individual has a monopoly on defining Islam and would seek to emphasize common ground with other faiths, rather than accentuate the differences. Amoderate would try to seek within Islam the roots of those political and social values that are broadly consonant with most of the general values of the rest of the contemporary world. A moderate Muslim would not reject the validity of other faiths. Against the realities of the contemporary Middle East, a moderate Muslim would broadly eschew violence as a means of settling political issues, but still might not condemn all aspects of political violence against state authorities who occupy Muslim lands by force – such as Russia in Chechnya, the Israeli state in the Palestine, or even American occupation forces in Iraq. Yet even here, in principle, a moderate must reject attacks against civilians, women, and children in any struggle for national liberation. Moderates would be open to cooperation with the West and the United States, but not at the expense of their own independence and sovereignty.
3
Fuller, Graham E. "Freedom and Security." American Journal of Islam and Society 22, no. 3 (July 1, 2005): 21–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.35632/ajis.v22i3.466.
Full textAbstract:
The DebateQuestion 1: Various commentators have frequently invoked the importance of moderate Muslims and the role that they can play in fighting extremism in the Muslim world. But it is not clear who is a moderate Muslim. The recent cancellation of Tariq Ramadan’s visa to the United States, the raids on several American Muslim organizations, and the near marginalization of mainstream American Muslims in North America pose the following question: If moderate Muslims are critical to an American victory in the war on terror, then why does the American government frequently take steps that undermine moderate Muslims? Perhaps there is a lack of clarity about who the moderate Muslims are. In your view, who are these moderate Muslims and what are their beliefs and politics?
GEF: Who is a moderate Muslim? That depends on whom you ask and what that person’s (or government’s) agenda is. Moderate is also a quite relative term, understood differently by different people. For our purposes here, let’s examine two basically different approaches to this question: an American view and a Middle Eastern view of what characterizes a moderate Muslim. Most non-Muslims would probably define a moderate Muslim as anyone who believes in democracy, tolerance, a non-violent approach to politics, and equitable treatment of women at the legal and social levels. Today, the American government functionally adds several more criteria: Amoderate Muslim is one who does not oppose the country’s strategic and geopolitical ambitions in the world, who accepts American interests and preferences within the world order, who believes that Islam has no role in politics, and who avoids any confrontation – even political – with Israel. There are deep internal contradictions and warring priorities within the American approach to the Muslim world. While democratization and “freedom” is the Bush administration’s self-proclaimed global ideological goal, the reality is that American demands for security and the war against terror take priority over the democratization agenda every time. Democratization becomes a punishment visited upon American enemies rather than a gift bestowed upon friends. Friendly tyrants take priority over those less cooperative moderate and democratic Muslims who do not acquiesce to the American agenda in the Muslim world. Within the United States itself, the immense domestic power of hardline pro-Likud lobbies and the Israel-firsters set the agenda on virtually all discourse concerning the Muslim world and Israel. This group has generally succeeded in excluding from the public dialogue most Muslim (or even non-Muslim) voices that are at all critical of Israel’s policies. This de facto litmus test raises dramatically the threshold for those who might represent an acceptable moderate Muslim interlocutor. The reality is that there is hardly a single prominent figure in the Muslim world who has not at some point voiced anger at Israeli policies against the Palestinians and who has not expressed ambivalence toward armed resistance against the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. Thus, few Muslim leaders enjoying public legitimacy in the Muslim world can meet this criterion these days in order to gain entry to the United States to participate in policy discussions. In short, moderate Muslimis subject to an unrealistic litmus test regarding views on Israel that functionally excludes the great majority of serious voices representative of genuine Muslim thinkers in the Middle East who are potential interlocutors. There is no reason to believe that this political framework will change in the United States anytime soon. In my view, a moderate Muslim is one who is open to the idea of evolutionary change through history in the understanding and practice of Islam, one who shuns literalism and selectivism in the understanding of sacred texts. Amoderate would reject the idea that any one group or individual has a monopoly on defining Islam and would seek to emphasize common ground with other faiths, rather than accentuate the differences. Amoderate would try to seek within Islam the roots of those political and social values that are broadly consonant with most of the general values of the rest of the contemporary world. A moderate Muslim would not reject the validity of other faiths. Against the realities of the contemporary Middle East, a moderate Muslim would broadly eschew violence as a means of settling political issues, but still might not condemn all aspects of political violence against state authorities who occupy Muslim lands by force – such as Russia in Chechnya, the Israeli state in the Palestine, or even American occupation forces in Iraq. Yet even here, in principle, a moderate must reject attacks against civilians, women, and children in any struggle for national liberation. Moderates would be open to cooperation with the West and the United States, but not at the expense of their own independence and sovereignty.
4
Sharipov, Sanjar Sobirovich. "Scientific Analysis Of Foreign Experience On The Activities Of Patrol-Post Service In Public Order And Security Systems." American Journal of Interdisciplinary Innovations and Research 03, no. 04 (April 27, 2021): 48–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.37547/tajiir/volume03issue04-08.
Full textAbstract:
The article deals with public order and security systems and the role of the patrol service, as well as the police of foreign countries, including the United States, France, Italy, Spain, Israel, China and Japan, in managing the activities of the patrol service in public order and security systems. The service experience has been scientifically analyzed. Based on best international practices, suggestions for improving national legislation are made.
5
Van Puyvelde, Damien, James J. Wirtz, Jean-Vincent Holeindre, Benjamin Oudet, Uri Bar-Joseph, Ken Kotani, Florina Cristiana Matei, and Antonio M. Díaz Fernández. "Comparing National Approaches to the Study of Intelligence." International Studies Perspectives 21, no. 3 (February 3, 2020): 298–337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/isp/ekz031.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract This forum compares and contrasts national experiences in the development of intelligence studies from the perspective of seven countries: France, Japan, Israel, Romania, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The discussion is structured around a comparative framework that emphasizes five core dimensions that, we posit, are essential to the emergence of this subfield: access to relevant government information, institutionalization of research on intelligence and security in a higher education setting, periodic scientific meetings and networks, teaching and learning opportunities, and engagement between researchers and practitioners. The forum demonstrates how researchers working in different contexts and disciplines have overcome similar challenges to broaden our understanding of secret government practices.
6
Posner, Richard A. "National Security and Constitutional Law. Précis: The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency." Israel Law Review 42, no. 2 (2009): 217–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0021223700000534.
Full textAbstract:
In my recent book Not a Suicide Pact: The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency (2006), I argue for a way of understanding constitutional law that would enable sensible adjustments to the pressures that arise when a nation is confronted with a serious threat to the safety or other well-being of its people; and I tried to show how the method that I was advocating could be used to resolve some of the constitutional issues that have arisen in the wake of the terrorist attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001. The analysis is limited to American constitutional law; whether it has possible applications to the law of Israel or of any other foreign country, I leave for others to decide, though, given the audience, I drop a few hints in this Paper.The starting point of my analysis is recognition that constitutional law, at least in America (but this is even more true of what passes for “constitutional law” in Israel), is very largely the creation of judges rather than of the framers or ratifiers of formal constitutions. The United States Constitution is 222 years old (1787–2009), though the amendments are younger (but the most influential of them—the first ten—the Bill of Rights, by just a few years). Some of the provisions, in both the original Constitution and in the Bill of Rights and later amendments, are precise; but many are not, and it is the vague or open-ended ones that figure most largely in debates over the legal limits of measures to protect national security. Terms like “due process of law,” “unreasonable searches and seizures,” “freedom of speech,” and “habeas corpus” are not self-defining; nor have judges been willing to confine them to the same meaning they had for the framers or to the core meaning that they would have to be given to have any significance at all. Because American judges do not adhere strictly to precedent, the meaning impressed by judicial decisions on constitutional texts is tentative, especially when a case arises that is not within the heartland of a previous decision because of the novelty of its facts or a shift in the social or political context of the relevant issues.
7
Parshkova, J. Yu. "The Development of the US National Missile Defense and its Impact on the International Security." MGIMO Review of International Relations, no. 1(40) (February 28, 2015): 43–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2015-1-40-43-48.
Full textAbstract:
The article reflects the US officials' point of view on the development of its national missile defense. The major threat to international security is the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction. The United States and the former Soviet Union made huge efforts to reduce and limit offensive arms. However, presently the proliferation of ballistic missiles spreads all over the world, especially in the Middle East, because of the ballistic missile technology falling into the hands of hostile non-state groups. Missile defenses can provide a permanent presence in a region and discourage adversaries from believing they can use ballistic missiles to coerce or intimidate the U.S. or its allies. With the possible attack regional missile defense systems will be promptly mobilized to enhance an effective deterrent. The ultimate goal of such large-scale missile defense deployment is to convince the adversaries that the use of ballistic missiles is useless in military terms and that any attack on the United States and its allies is doomed to failure. The United States has missile defense cooperative programs with a number of allies, including United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, Israel, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Czech Republic, Poland, Italy and many others. The Missile Defense Agency also actively participates in NATO activities to maximize opportunities to develop an integrated NATO ballistic missile defense capability. The initiative of the development of US BMD naturally belongs to the United States. That country has enormous technological, financial, economic, military and institutional capabilities, exceeding by far those of the other NATO members combined.
8
Cheung, Tai Ming, and Bates Gill. "Trade Versus Security: How Countries Balance Technology Transfers with China." Journal of East Asian Studies 13, no. 3 (December 2013): 443–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1598240800008298.
Full textAbstract:
Apart from a short period in the 1980s, the People's Republic of China has been almost completely excluded from access to military and sensitive dual-use civilian-military technologies from the United States and its allies. But in an era of globalization and convergence in the civilian and military technological domains, this compartmentalization of the economic and security arenas has become increasingly difficult to maintain and justify. Major trading countries are caught in the dilemma of balancing restrictions on high technology and other sensitive trade and investment with China against the benefits of deeper ties with the world's second-largest economy. In examining the trade-offs between economics and national security for the United States, the European Union, Israel, and Japan, it becomes clear that China's rise and growing economic and strategic influence introduce new complexities and challenges for controlling militarily relevant technology and knowledge transfers.
9
Mikaelian, Arman Artakovich, and Vladimir Mikhailovich Morozov. "The U.S. Factor in Sino-Israeli and Indian-Israeli Relations." Vestnik RUDN. International Relations 21, no. 2 (December 15, 2021): 338–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.22363/2313-0660-2021-21-2-338-349.
Full textAbstract:
The article analyses the US influence on Israeli policy towards both China and India. The United States has had and still has a significant influence on the dynamics of Israeli-Chinese and Israeli-Indian relations. The relevance of the issue stems from the growing importance of China and India in the world affairs amid rising tensions between the US and China that are spilling into a trade war. The article aims to explore the US influence on Israels policy in Asia. It examines the way how the Israeli leadership has adapted to Washingtons influence while promoting its strategic cooperation with China and India. The study comprises historical method, comparative analysis and historical-systematic analysis. The author comes to the following conclusions. First, Washingtons influence on Sino-Israeli relations has gone through five development stages: the first stage (1971-1989): implicit US support for the development of Sino-Israeli relations; the second stage (1990-1998): American criticism of military and technical cooperation between Israel and China; the third stage (1999-2005): Washingtons shift from criticism to pressure policy in order to prevent the Israeli leadership from military cooperation with China; the fourth stage (2006-2016): Israels acceptance of US demands and refusal to supply arms to Beijing (with Tel Aviv focusing on the development of trade and economic relations with China); the fifth stage (2017 - present): U.S. criticism of Israeli-Chinese economic cooperation amid worsening contacts between Beijing and Washington. The Israeli government is trying to meet Washingtons demands as well as preserve its strategic economic relations with Beijing. Second, the US factor, on the contrary, contributed to normalization of Indian-Israeli relations, having a positive impact on the development of trade, economic and military cooperation between Tel Aviv and New Delhi. Third, the US actions can be explained by an attempt to preserve its national interests. At the same time, the author stresses that the US influence on Israels policy in Asia complies with Washingtons regional priorities set forth in the 2017 US National Security Strategy.
10
Gill, Amandeep Singh. "Artificial Intelligence and International Security: The Long View." Ethics & International Affairs 33, no. 02 (2019): 169–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0892679419000145.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractHow will emerging autonomous and intelligent systems affect the international landscape of power and coercion two decades from now? Will the world see a new set of artificial intelligence (AI) hegemons just as it saw a handful of nuclear powers for most of the twentieth century? Will autonomous weapon systems make conflict more likely or will states find ways to control proliferation and build deterrence, as they have done (fitfully) with nuclear weapons? And importantly, will multilateral forums find ways to engage the technology holders, states as well as industry, in norm setting and other forms of controlling the competition? The answers to these questions lie not only in the scope and spread of military applications of AI technologies but also in how pervasive their civilian applications will be. Just as civil nuclear energy and peaceful uses of outer space have cut into and often shaped discussions on nuclear weapons and missiles, the burgeoning uses of AI in consumer products and services, health, education, and public infrastructure will shape views on norm setting and arms control. New mechanisms for trust and confidence-building measures might be needed not only between China and the United States—the top competitors in comprehensive national strength today—but also among a larger group of AI players, including Canada, France, Germany, India, Israel, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the United Kingdom.
11
Alarqan, Abdullah. "UNITED STATES POSITION TOWARDS IRAN AFTER THE NUCLEAR DEAL (2015-2019)." Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews 8, no. 1 (January 21, 2020): 210–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2020.8130.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose of the study: This study examines the history of US-Iranian relations after the nuclear deal 2015 and it seeks to achieve some objectives.
Methodology: The study uses a combination of the historical approach and the international order approach of the one hand, and the decision-making approach and the national interest approach on the other.
Main Findings: The USA tried to dissuade Iran from pursuing its nuclear program. This was not for interests or economic motives of the USA; rather it was for satisfying Israel and maintaining its security, stability, and existence. It should be noted that the nuclear deal between Iran and the P5 + 1 was ratified by the UN Security Council, where the USA under Trump proved that it does not preserve or respect deals or conventions.
Applications of this study: This research can be used for academic purposes for universities, lecturers of political science, researchers and undergraduate and postgraduate students. Also, it can be used for policy purposes for the decision-makers and politicians.
Novelty/Originality of this study: The phenomenon that existed in nuclear deal 2015 and referring from various previous research results, the study regarding the US-Iranian relationship after the nuclear deal 2015 was conducted and presented comprehensively and completely. It is necessary to take into account this topic that can explore the US-Iranian relationship and determine the extent to which topic can contribute to political science researches.
12
Vetoshkina, E. D. "Holocaust Denial: Social Conditionality and Comparative Analysis of Criminal Law Prohibition." Lex Russica, no. 11 (November 15, 2020): 129–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.17803/1729-5920.2020.168.11.129-138.
Full textAbstract:
From the second half of the 20th century the revisionist movement has spread among scientists, public and political figures. Publicists and scientists are known for criticizing the testimonies of concentration camp prisoners and their executioners, as well as denying the possibility of mass extermination of prisoners in terms of the technical capabilities of gas chambers.Attempts to reinterpret historical events often border on extremism and pose a threat to national security, leading to a significant deterioration in international relations. At the international level, a number of acts have been adopted indicating that the Holocaust is a fact established by the verdict of the Nuremberg Tribunal, and calling on states to reject any denial of the Holocaust. International organizations that oppose attempts to rewrite history include the Council of Europe, the United Nations, and UNESCO.At the national level, responsibility for denying and justifying the Holocaust has been established in a number of states. The first group includes states that are responsible for denying and approving the Holocaust and other crimes committed by the Nazis (Germany, France, Austria, Israel). The second group includes states that equated Nazi crimes in their legislation with crimes of communism (Hungary, Czech Republic, Lithuania). The third group consists of states that prohibit the denial and justification of any genocide (Switzerland, Luxembourg). Some states (for example, the United States) refused to introduce such bans, citing freedom of speech and belief.In 2014, the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation introduced article 354.1 "Rehabilitation of Nazism", which sets forth responsibility for denying the facts established by the Nuremberg Tribunal verdict. At the same time, the legislator should not selectively approach the protection of historical events. It would be fair to criminalize the denial of genocide and other international crimes recognized by the international community, regardless of any criteria relating to the perpetrators.
13
Shved, V. "Formation of the Basic Principles of the Middle East policy of the Joe Biden Administration." Problems of World History, no. 14 (June 10, 2021): 147–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.46869/2707-6776-2021-14-6.
Full textAbstract:
The period from January to March 2021 completed the formation of the main outlines of the foreign policy of the Joe Biden administration in the Middle East, which found its consolidation in the Interim Strategic Leadership in the field of national security. Its main features, in contrast to the policy of the D. Trump administration, are based on the principles of democracy, liberalism and reliance on the alliances and allies of the United States in the region.
The main directions of the foreign policy course of the new US administration in the Middle East region are determined as follows: ensuring effective security for Israel in the context of its deep integration into the Middle East, advancing the process of the Abrahamic agreements and resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict on the basis of a two-state solution; organizing, together with its regional allies and partners, the effective counteraction to the Iranian expansionist course by returning to an updated and expanded Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action; continuing the counterterrorism activities with reliance on regional partners and improvement of the forms and methods of its implementation; significantly reducing the level of tension in the region.
When implementing these tasks, the Biden administration will have to find a balance between the proclaimed principles of its foreign policy in the region and the existing realities and traditions, especially among the Arab countries of the region.
14
Lyons, Scott W. "New Robust Peacekeeping." Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting 112 (2018): 109–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/amp.2019.12.
Full textAbstract:
Peacekeeping, conceptually, was designed to be traditionally defensive in nature with a neutral, unarmed, multinational force maintaining or monitoring peace. The first major example of a United Nations peacekeeping force dates to the initial Arab-Israeli conflict with the UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNSTO), established in May 1948. The peacekeepers were there to observe and maintain the ceasefire and assist in any terms of the armistice agreements following the initial fighting with the partition of the British Mandate in Palestine and the later declaration of the State of Israel. The Security Council Resolution “Instruct[ed] the United Nations Mediator in Palestine, in concert with the Truce Commission, to supervise the observance of the above provisions, and decide[d] that they shall be provided with a sufficient number of military observers.” UNTSO was followed by a variation, the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan, which was to observe and report violations of the ceasefire along the contested border. Both of these original UN peacekeeping operations are still in existence after seventy years. This original concept of peacekeeping was based upon the United Nation's principle that the organization would act to prevent conflict between states following the atrocities committed during World War II through its neutrality. However, the term “peacekeeping” is not found anywhere within the United Nations Charter. It is instead inferred under both Chapter VI and Chapter VII powers to resolve disputes.
15
TAŞ, Elif Nur, Zeynep PARALI, and Hatice Nur ÇETİN. "DÜNYA BASININDA TÜRKİ YE’Nİ N S/İ HA GÜCÜ VE KÜRESEL Sİ YASETE YANSIMALARI." “Küresel siyaset: Türkiye’den bakış”, Spring,2021 (April 30, 2021): 202–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.30546/2616-4418.bitd.2021.202.
Full textAbstract:
Technological innovations in the ield of informatics, rapid developments in subjects such as artiicial intelligence and robotic engineering have put Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) and Armed Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UCAV) into the battleield of the 21st century. At this point, states whose common concerns are security have taken the path of both obtaining intelligence and developing unmanned aerial systems, whose use is rapidly increasing in the ield of war-defense. It is known that many countries are currently working on developing and producing UAVs, beside United States of America (USA) and Israel which both have advanced unmanned aerial systems. Because states that are developing and manufacturing their own unmanned aerial systems are aware that this situation will provide a strategic advantage in terms of their military, political and economic interests. In this context, Turkey didn’t stay indifferent to the developments of unmanned aerial systems emerging in each passing day, it has made considerable momentum towards the last ifteen years to develop national and indigenous UAV systems. Especially since mid-2010, these systems have been used eficiently in both intra border operations and crossborder operations The main question of this article is how Turkey’s UAV/UCAV power is relected in global politics and in this direction, world press will be scanned. In this context, this study will primarily explained by Turkey’s domestic and national development of unmanned aerial systems adventure in general terms; then Turkey’s use of these vehicles in where and for what purpose will be evaluated. Afterward it will be evaluated that how Turkey’s power of UAV/UCAV is perceived by other states in economic and military-political aspects by examining the relevant state press and publishing organizations Keywords: Turkey, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles, Press- Publishing Organizations.
16
Shantaram, Manjula. "Bioterrorism." Biomedicine 41, no. 2 (July 2, 2021): 167. http://dx.doi.org/10.51248/.v41i2.776.
Full textAbstract:
Terrorism that involves the deliberate release or distribution of biological agents is called bioterrorism. These pathogens are bacteria, viruses, fungi, other microorganisms and their related toxins, insects, and they can be natural or human-modified forms, which are roughly the same way as in biological warfare that can sicken or kill people, livestock, or crops.
These high-priority means include organisms or toxins that pose the greatest risk to the public and national security: Anthrax (Bacillus anthracis) Botulism (Clostridium botulinum toxin) Plague (Yersinia pestis). They have the ability to have harmful effects on human health in many ways, from relatively mild allergic reactions to serious medical conditions and even death. Bacillus anthracis, the bacterium that produces anthrax, and is one of the pathogens most likely to be used for biological attacks.Bioterrorism cancausemass deaths, epidemics, medical staff illness, environmental pollution, legal issues, and cause anxiety in the medical community and the wider community (1).
Unfortunately, bioterrorism agents are difficult to control and affect military personnel and civilian men, women and children. In the past 100 years, the United States and the international community have experienced various acts of bioterrorism against civilians. The model shows that the economic impact of bioterrorism attacks ranges from an estimated US$477.7 million per 100,000 people exposed (brucellosis scenario) to US$26.2 billion per 100,000 people exposed (anthrax scenario). The possibility of bioterrorism is particularly worrying because it causes disease, death and panic, disproportionate to the resources consumed (2).
The purpose of bioterrorism is usually to create fear and / or threaten the government or society in order to obtain political, religious or ideological objectives. Compared to weapons like explosives, it can have a unique impact on society. Depending on the situation, wear a mask to reduce inhalation or spread of bacteria. If you have been in contact with biological agents, remove and store your clothing and personal things. Follow official instructions for disposing of contaminated items. Wash with soap and water and put on clean clothes.
Bioterrorism agents can be spread through the air or into food or water, and are extremely difficult to detect. The outbreak of biological weapons’ diseases may lead to the extinction of endangered wild animal species, the erosion of genetic diversity of domesticated animals and plants, and the destruction of traditional human livelihoods (3). Symptoms of exposure to biological agents may include sore throat, fever, blurred vision or diplopia, rash or blistering, exhaustion, slurred speech, confusion, muscle weakness, nausea, abdominal pain, vomiting, diarrhoea, and cough. The occurrence of a weapon attack may be impossible, but planning and preparation can greatly reduce the death and suffering caused by it.
Only 16 countries plus Taiwan possess or presumably possess biological weapons programs: Canada, China, Cuba, France, Germany, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Japan, Libya, North Korea, Russia, South Africa, Syria, and the United States. Britain and the United States. The way to deal with such threats is through international law and carefully negotiated treaties and verification mechanisms. An important protection measure against biological weapons is currently being negotiated in Geneva. Available protective equipment includes respiratory protection devices, full-face protective masks and surgical masks for respiratory protection, combat suits, protective gloves, and skin-protecting boots. Full protection is required when the agent is not recognized. The inherent characteristics of biological agents that affect their potential for use as weapons include: virulence; toxicity; pathogenicity; incubation period; transmissibility; lethality and stability.
Now regarding the COVID19 pandemic, there is a game of blame between the two superpowers, the United States and China. It is not clear whether the spread of COVID19 is intentional or unintentional, whether it is a natural virus threatening the world or an artificial virus. Two conspiracy theories about the origin of COVID19 are widely circulated in China and the West, one accusing the United States and the other accusing the higher-level biological containment laboratory in Wuhan, the epicentre of the pandemic (4).
However, this has caused pain, death, mental distress, depression, and billions of dollars in treatment and vaccine costs all over the world. This whole process reminds us of Frankenstein's sci-fi monster. The moral lesson learned from this is that people need to blend in and feel connected to others in order to survive. In addition, humans must carefully consider the cost of scientific progress.
17
Segal, David R. "National Security and Democracy in the United States." Armed Forces & Society 20, no. 3 (April 1994): 375–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0095327x9402000304.
Full text
18
Stern, R. "Oil market power and United States national security." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103, no. 5 (January 20, 2006): 1650–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0503705102.
Full text
19
Moreno, Jonathan D. "Bioethics and the National Security State." Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 32, no. 2 (2004): 198–208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720x.2004.tb00466.x.
Full textAbstract:
it is mandatory that in building up our strength, we enlarge upon our technical superiority by an accelerated exploitation of the scientific potential of the United States and our allies. National Security Council, NSC-G8: United States Objectives and Program for National Security April 14, 1950 Innovation within the armed forces will rest on experimentation with new approaches to warfare, strengthening joint operations, exploiting U.S. intelligence advantages, and takingfull advantage of science and technology. George W Bush, The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, September 17,2002
20
Fischer, Claude S., and Yossi Shavit. "National differences in network density: Israel and the United States." Social Networks 17, no. 2 (April 1995): 129–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(94)00251-5.
Full text
21
Menashri, David. "Iran, Israel, and the United States: Regime Security vs. Political Legitimacy." Iranian Studies 47, no. 2 (February 5, 2014): 367–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00210862.2013.860329.
Full text
22
Weaver, John. "The 2017 National Security Strategy of the United States." Journal of Strategic Security 11, no. 1 (April 2018): 62–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.5038/1944-0472.11.1.1655.
Full text
23
Black, Jan Knippers, and Lars Schoultz. "National Security and United States Policy toward Latin America." Hispanic American Historical Review 68, no. 3 (August 1988): 625. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2516561.
Full text
24
Kenworthy, Eldon, and Lars Schoultz. "National Security and United States Policy toward Latin America." Political Science Quarterly 103, no. 4 (1988): 755. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2150924.
Full text
25
Black, Jan Knippers. "National Security and United States Policy toward Latin America." Hispanic American Historical Review 68, no. 3 (August 1, 1988): 625–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/00182168-68.3.625.
Full text
26
Stern, R. "The Iranian petroleum crisis and United States national security." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104, no. 1 (December 26, 2006): 377–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0603903104.
Full text
27
Crassweller, Robert D., and Lars Schoultz. "National Security and United States Policy toward Latin America." Foreign Affairs 66, no. 1 (1987): 197. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20043327.
Full text
28
Soffer, A. "Environmental quality and national security." Water Science and Technology 42, no. 1-2 (July 1, 2000): 361–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wst.2000.0339.
Full textAbstract:
This article defines national security and environmental quality, points to the developing connection between the two, and uses the case of Israel to illustrate this link. The following matters have to be learned about national security as well as world security – rainfall and water table levels as predictors of famine and the collapse of governments, or the spread of the Sahara Desert as a predictor that ethnic strife will result. Failure to halt the deterioration of ecological systems threatens national security and human survival as a whole. There are disasters that are immediate, but most of them do not constitute a threat to the national security of states, the exceptions are nuclear threat as in the Chernobyl case, or droughts and flooding. There are disasters that are felt only in the medium term, like climatic changes and they can endanger entire states, thus weakening national security.
29
Oza, Rupal. "Contrapuntal Geographies of Threat and Security: The United States, India, and Israel." Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 25, no. 1 (February 2007): 9–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/d1404.
Full text
30
Sutter, Robert. "The United States and Asia in 2017." Asian Survey 58, no. 1 (January 2018): 10–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/as.2018.58.1.10.
Full textAbstract:
Early Trump administration initiatives upset regional stability, complicating the foreign policies of Asian partners and opponents alike. Subsequent pragmatic summitry eased regional anxiety and clarified the new government’s security and political objectives. The administration’s national security strategy, released in December, provided a well-integrated security, economic, and diplomatic strategy for Asia and the rest of the world.
31
Boutin, Kenneth. "Challenging Security: The United States and the Belt and Road Initiative." China and the World 02, no. 01 (March 2019): 1950007. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/s259172931950007x.
Full textAbstract:
Complex national and economic security imperatives drive American China policy. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) heightens the tension between national and economic security requirements and between different levels of economic security. This renders the established American policy approach, which centers around pursuing national and economic security as separate policy tracks, difficult to sustain. The threat posed by the Initiative to the national security of the United States encourages a focus on it in these terms. Such a focus is all the more likely under President Donald Trump, who is not predisposed to consider the BRI an economic security threat.
32
Mitchell, Christopher. "National Security and United States Policy toward Latin America.Lars Schoultz." Journal of Politics 50, no. 4 (November 1988): 1134–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2131411.
Full text
33
Constantian, Alan R. "Russia's Public Health: National Security Issue for the United States?" Military Medicine 170, no. 4 (April 2005): 285–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.7205/milmed.170.4.285.
Full text
34
Johnson, Loch K. "National Security Intelligence in the United States: A Performance Checklist." Intelligence and National Security 26, no. 5 (October 2011): 607–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02684527.2011.604198.
Full text
35
Katz, Steven L. "National security controls, information, and communication in the United States." Government Information Quarterly 4, no. 1 (January 1987): 63–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0740-624x(87)90050-5.
Full text
36
Subarkah, Hazazi Ridho, Yanyan Mochamad Yani, and Taufik Hidayat. "THE EFFECT OF THE UNITED STATES OUT OF PARIS AGREEMENT OF 2015 ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES." Sociae Polites 20, no. 2 (December 10, 2019): 133–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.33541/sp.v20i2.1353.
Full textAbstract:
This research will discuss climate change, which causes national security threats to several countries. To tackle climate change, the United States ratified the Paris Agreement 2015, but in 2017 the United States left the agreement. The position of the United States is important because it is both an emitter and a cause of climate change. So that climate change influences the national security of the United States. This study was analyzed using the concept of safety and environmental safety. The idea of security used to analyze the threats caused by climate change to the United States national security threats, and the concept of environmental protection is to analyze the ecological crisis as a threat because it is no longer able to sustain human life. This research method with qualitative methods and data collection techniques through a literature study. The results of this study, based on the findings of climate change as a threat to the United States, can have an impact on health, food availability, requests, and coastal areas. It also disrupted military bases and operations in several international and domestic sectors.
37
Schlegel, Christian. "The Significance of Security Policy in the Israel-United States Free Trade Agreement." Zeitschrift für Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik 11, no. 1 (January 2018): 13–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12399-017-0688-z.
Full text
38
Shahabi, Rouhollah, and Alireza Mashoori. "Ideological Relationship between Neo-Conservative Government of George W. Bush and Israeli Government." Journal of Politics and Law 10, no. 1 (December 29, 2016): 50. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jpl.v10n1p50.
Full textAbstract:
United States and Israel despite all the alliances and relationships among governments, has a special relationship. Various factors are United States of America support and help Israel and its special status of the country for America in particular was in Bush period. Political, economic and geographical factors..., which resulted Israel had special and unique place in the foreign policy of the United States. However, the role of religion and ideology in this relationship and its impact on support for Israel not ignored. George Bush is a Christian believes in his speeches frequently uses religious concepts. He argues that had a regular communication with God and takes over on a divine mission. This Bush’s religious beliefs is where express the support for Israel in the form of religious Evangelical and word concepts. Bush knows support for Israel as God intention and had a religious and apocalyptic view to Israel. The Bush administration formed the neoconservatives who tend much more support Israel. Ideological affinity George W. The Bush government with Israel is the factor that America political security supports from Israel increased.
39
Lavi, Shai. "Punishment and the Revocation of Citizenship in the United Kingdom, United States, and Israel." New Criminal Law Review 13, no. 2 (2010): 404–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/nclr.2010.13.2.404.
Full textAbstract:
The article examines the ways in which three common law countries——the United Kingdom, the United States, and Israel——have introduced new rules for the revocation of citizenship that diverge from the traditional common law model. The main thrust of the article is to demonstrate how these new regulations are based on three distinct models of citizenship: citizenship as security, citizenship as a social contract, and citizenship as an ethnonational bond. Instead of critically evaluating each model, the article offers a fourth model for revocation based on the civic notion of citizenship. This model offers a new formulation of the traditional common law duty of allegiance, of its breach, and of the revocation of citizenship as punishment. The article will conclude with the suggestion that this model may be able simultaneously to guarantee the protection of political rights and to safeguard the political community.
40
Chayes, Antonia. "How American Treaty Behavior Threatens National Security." International Security 33, no. 1 (July 2008): 45–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/isec.2008.33.1.45.
Full textAbstract:
In recent years, American treaty behavior has produced growing concern among both allies and less friendly nations. On such fundamental issues as nuclear proliferation, terrorism, human rights, civil liberties, environmental disasters, and commerce, the United States has generated confusion and anger abroad. Such a climate is not conducive to needed cooperation in the conduct of foreign and security policy. Among U.S. actions that have caused concern are the failure to ratify several treaties; the attachment of reservations, understandings, and declarations before ratification; the failure to support a treaty regime once ratified; and treaty withdrawal. The structural and historical reasons for American treaty behavior are deeply rooted in the United States' system of government and do not merely reflect superpower arrogance.
41
Derian, J. D. "Decoding The National Security Strategy of the United States of America." boundary 2 30, no. 3 (September 1, 2003): 19–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/01903659-30-3-19.
Full text
42
Goldstein, Donald J. "Foreign direct investment in the United States and national security policy." Comparative Strategy 7, no. 2 (January 1988): 143–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01495938808402739.
Full text
43
Gibson, James L. "The Structure of Attitudinal Tolerance in the United States." British Journal of Political Science 19, no. 4 (October 1989): 562–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0007123400005640.
Full textAbstract:
In recent years there has been a resurgence in interest in the cross-national study of public opinion. A significant component of this rekindling of attention has been the specific area of public support for the fundamental values of democracy. John Sullivan and his various colleagues have reported on political tolerance in the United States, Israel, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. In conjunction with a smattering of more limited cross-national studies, and newly-completed studies that are just now emerging, a wealth of comparative data is now available.
44
Lapidoth, Ruth. "Security Council Resolution 242 at Twenty Five." Israel Law Review 26, no. 3 (1992): 295–318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0021223700011031.
Full textAbstract:
There is hardly any United Nations resolution which is quoted and referred to as often as 242. It has become the cornerstone for all stages in the settlement of the Arab-Israel conflict, as, for example, the Camp David Frameworks (1978) and the Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel (1979). In addition, it has been referred to by the conveners of the Madrid Conference (1991) as the basis for the negotiations which were started at that Conference and are going on as this article is being written.According to the letter of invitation to the Madrid Conference, the parties are invited to achieve peace through direct negotiations along two tracks, between Israel and the Arab States, and between Israel and the Palestinians. The latter are to be part of a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation. With respect to the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, they are to be conducted in phases, beginning with talks on interim self-government arrangements which should last five years.
45
Calvert, Peter. "National security and United States policy towards Latin America and Condemned to repetition: the United States and Nicaragua." International Affairs 64, no. 2 (1988): 328–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2621933.
Full text
46
Dupree, A. Hunter. "National security and the post-war science establishment in the United States." Nature 323, no. 6085 (September 1986): 213–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/323213a0.
Full text
47
Glaser, Charles L. "How Oil Influences U.S. National Security." International Security 38, no. 2 (October 2013): 112–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00137.
Full textAbstract:
How do states' oil requirements influence U.S. national security? Although a great deal of attention has focused on “energy security,” scholars and policymakers lack satisfactory answers because little analysis links states' energy requirements with the probability of military conflict. Developing an analytic catalogue of the ways in which states' oil requirements could influence U.S. national security is the first step in closing this gap. Possible mechanisms include vulnerable access to oil that threatens a state's military capability; military policies designed to protect access to oil that threaten another state's military capability, which in turn create an access-driven security dilemma; and oil reserves that increase the value of territory, generating a conflict that draws in the United States via an alliance commitment. A distinctive feature of this framework is that some of these mechanisms identify threats to U.S. security that flow from another country's consumption of oil, not from U.S. consumption. Of particular importance is the potential danger that Chinese oil imports create for U.S. security—China's efforts to protect its sea lines of communication are fueling military competition that could strain U.S.-China relations and increase the probability of conflict between them. Policy options for dealing with these dangers share little with the standard options prescribed for dealing with the dangers related to Persian Gulf oil and U.S. oil consumption.
48
Simon, Douglas W. "Simulation : The National Security Council." News for Teachers of Political Science 47 (1985): 3–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s019790190000324x.
Full textAbstract:
In the spring of 1981 I designed and taught what I considered, at the time, a "high risk" seminar for seventeen junior and senior political science majors. There were to be no textbooks, no lectures, no examinations and no term papers, those hallmarks of the traditional college course. Nevertheless, when the thirteen week course was over, the students were exhausted and claimed that they had never worked so hard in their college careers.The adventure that my students (and I) undertook was a semester long simulation of the United States National Security Council (NSC), dealing with actual global events as they happened. As Washington dealt with a problem, we dealt with the same problem. The simulation was initially offered during the deteriorating situation in Iran and instability in the Gulf region.
49
Smith, Lieutenant Commander Ursula, and Colonel Daniel J. Lecce. "Litigating National Security Cases under The United States Uniform Code of Military Justice." Journal of International Peacekeeping 20, no. 3-4 (August 17, 2016): 250–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/18754112-02003007.
Full textAbstract:
This paper will discuss classified litigation procedures in United States Military Courts-Martial, governed by Military Rule of Evidence 505 and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The differences between United States Federal Court procedures and United States Military Commissions, governed by the Classified Information Privilege Act (cipa) and Military Commissions Rule of Evidence 505, are also discussed. Finally, best practices and selected military cases regarding espionage are presented.
50
Kapstein, Ethan B. "The Political Economy of National Security." Political Science Teacher 3, no. 2 (1990): 15–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0896082800001045.
Full textAbstract:
In recent years, public officials in the United States and abroad have expressed increasing concern over the economic effects of defense spending. It has been alleged that defense spending is a major cause of the budget deficit and is at the root of America's economic “decline.” Even in the Soviet Union, questions are now being raised about the impact of military spending on the civilian economy.As director of a research program at Harvard that focuses on economics and national security, I decided it was important to offer a course on the “political economy of national security.” While Harvard and other major universities in the Boston area offer courses in political economy on the one hand and national security on the other, students have few opportunities to examine national defense from an economic perspective. Given that national security is the largest single economic activity in the United States and many other countries, and given intense student interest in the topic, the time was ripe to devise such a course.The course was first offered in the Harvard Summer School, which is open to undergraduate and graduate students from Harvard and other universities. The only prerequisite was an introductory course in economics. As it turns out, most of the students were more than adequately prepared; among those who attended were students from Harvard Business School, the Kennedy School of Government, some local defense industry executives, military officers, and a number of Ph.D. candidates. For those who might consider offering such a course, I would suggest that the required economics course not be waived in any circumstances; otherwise you will spend a lot of time explaining basic concepts.