Suchergebnisse

The article of record as published may be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02684527.2014.915180 ; This article reviews Romania's intelligence reform after 1989. Specifically, it looks at intelligence reform before and after Romania's accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 2004, and the European Union (EU) in 2007. It finds that Romania has made considerable progress in intelligence reform. That is because Romania, which expressed its desire and commitment to join NATO/EU after 1989, has worked hard to comply with these organizations' membership demands (including intelligence reform). After NATO/EU integration (when demands on balancing control and effectiveness virtually vanished), despite continued openness efforts made by agencies, control/oversight diluted. Thus, post-NATO/EU, while effectiveness is being strengthened, democratic control lessens.

The end of the Cold War triggered an inexorable bloom of democracy and freedom in a multifarious and perilous security environment. Post-Cold War security challenges and threats no longer come from organized, hierarchical state actors, but rather from non-state, easily adaptable, network-centric groups and organizations (such as terrorist, organized crime (OC), money laundering and human trafficking groups), which have progressively succeeded in altering the traditional geographic borders between countries, as well as between domestic and foreign threats. The breakup of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s and the terrorist attacks in the US (2001), Turkey (2003), Spain (2004) and London (2005), etc. have clearly illustrated how instability and war involving failing states, on the one hand, or specific ideologies and religious convictions of small groups of people (yet very well prepared and organized), on the other hand, can impact the peace and security of an entire region or continent.

The article of record as published may be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08850600903143205 ; The safeguarding of civil liberties and ensuring the accountability and transparency of the intelligence and security institutions, even if protecting national security, are crucial in a democracy. Accommodating both secrecy (which an intelligence community (IC) needs in order to function effectively) and transparency (which enables citizens to know what their government is doing) begins with the creation of a comprehensive legal framework. This not only ensures that the intelligence organizations work effectively and are able to adjust to new dynamics, concepts, and technologies, but also guarantees that they respect the rule of law, as well as human liberties and rights. A legal framework for intelligence (1) delineates the rights, obligations, and powers of the intelligence organizations, as well as the arrangements for their governance and accountability; (2) provides the intelligence system with guidance as to what it can and cannot do; (3) indicates who is in charge and who oversees the activity of intelligence; (4) ensures that the intelligence apparatus is responsible before the law in case of abuses; and (5) makes sure that the IC benefits from legal protection if it observes the legally agreed guidance and directions.

Prepared for International Studies Association (ISA) San Francisco, March 2008 ; Introduction: Although not an outcome of the end of the cold war, intelligence cooperation has evolved significantly after the fall of the iron curtain. The twenty first century's security environment is variegated, unpredictable and extremely dynamic. Poverty, corruption, isolation of minorities, failed states, organized crime, terrorism, pandemic disease, natural disasters, climate change are but a few security dangers, which not only are in a perpetual transformation, but are also interlocking and overlapping, showing how volatile the boundaries between these menaces are.1 The geographic borders between countries are no longer fixed, although this is what the terrorists want the governments to think: the actual borders are 'delineated' by terrorist activities, organized crime, and money laundering.

The article of record as published may be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08850600701492762 ; Romania's intelligence system has followed a path from serving as an instrument of communist dictatorship to being an effective intelligence community under democratic control. This achievement is notable, considering both the relatively short amount of time for the transition and the foundations of the organization—the Securitate.

This copy is the final, peer-reviewed manuscript. ; Since the end of the Cold War, the United States (US) has been supporting Latin America's democracy and security through a series of diplomatic, social and security-related initiatives and programs.1 Fighting gangs has been part of these endeavors since the early 1990s, when the U.S. government became aware of the challenges posed domestically by gangs and enacted numerous anti-gang initiatives. This article examines efforts by the US to counter the gang problem in Central America, including the Central American Regional Security Initiative (CARSI) and the Mérida Initiative, as well as recent endeavors pursued by the Obama administration. The article also reviews the changes in Central American government attitudes toward fighting gangs, and assesses the impact (if any) of U.S. policies on the region's security.

The article of record as published may be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195375886.003.0045 ; This article discusses the quest for transparency and effectiveness of the intelligence systems in the developing democracies. The article begins with a review of the literature on intelligence reform in new democracies. It also discusses the role of intelligence in non-democratic regimes, the legacies from these regimes in transitional democracies, and the challenges involved including the achievements in reforming intelligence in developing countries.

The article of record as published may be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14751790903201406 ; This article builds on recent contributions to the study of civil–military relations (CMR) by broadening the focus beyond democratic control to encompass other dimensions and levels of analysis. There are problems with the classical literature, as has recently been noted by some scholars. The first problem is that CMR has dealt almost exclusively with issues of control. In the more established democracies, the literature focuses on how control is exercised; in newer democracies, on how it can be achieved. What is scarce in the literature is attention to what the military and other security forces do; that is, their roles and missions and how effectively they implement them. Second, the CMR literature consists mainly of detailed case studies that are difficult to generalize to other times and places.