( 您好!臺灣時間:2021/04/11 22:08
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  


研究生(外文):Schoppmeyer, Christian
論文名稱:犧牲值得嗎? 奧運安全措施與侵犯公民自由
論文名稱(外文):Worth the Sacrifice? Security Measures at the Olympic Games and the Infringements on Civil Liberties
指導教授(外文):Lin, Yung-Fang
外文關鍵詞:SecuritizationCivil LibertiesInternational Sporting EventsOlympic Games
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:30
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:4
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
儘管歷屆國際奧林匹克運動會一向被視為是和平團結各國的象徵,還是無法免除會期間無所不在的安全威脅。換句話說,正由於奧運名氣眾所週知,因此也樹大招風,容易成為某些個人或團體,為了對全世界表達其訴求,而進行恐怖攻擊的目標。 因此,對奧運主辦國來說,確保奧運會期的安全是至關重要的。有趣的是,在911攻擊後至今,國際上對安全維持的想法有了很大的轉變。總結來說,高外部可視性可等同於高安全性。也就是說,措施越容易讓人察覺,其造成的震懾度越能提高安全。 然而,要施行嚴格並明顯易察覺的安全措施的代價是對個人自由與公眾權益的犧牲。安全,是由自由交換而來。本研究演示了相似的安全理論轉變如何實現在國際賽事上。本研究選擇分析2008年的北京奧運以及2014年的索契冬奧,以及兩場奧運主辦國如何確保會期間的安全。除此之外,本篇論文也旨在研究兩國政府所施行的安全舉措是否合理正當,尤其是這些舉措多大程度的影響了兩國公民的權益和自由。研究結果更進一步助於理解論文中的兩國政府有責於其安全策略與實施的措施為所帶來的結果與負面影響。本研究在論文最後以國際安全理論中的安全化研究的角度去對兩項案例研究進行比較分析。研究者由此能識別出兩個威權型政體的政府在奧運的安全策略上的主要的差異以及少數的相似點。研究者最終的結論是政體類型並沒有足夠的證據作為政府在針對奧運的安全化行為中的主要因素。雖然本研究論文的確顯示兩國皆將奧運會視為達成其政治目的與政治宣傳的工具,研究者仍然有意強調兩主辦國本身的出發點。也就是說,研究者有意在文本中從兩國自己的歷史與敘事脈絡中分析他們對自身以外的國際社會的認知與反應。
Despite being considered an international sporting event that brings all nations closer together, the Olympic Games in particular have a long history of dealing with a seemingly omnipresent security threat. That is, given the global prominence of the Games, they also attract individuals and groups who aim to utilize the Olympics as a platform for terrorists acts in order to bring their intended message to the world stage. Thus, there is tremendous pressure involved for every host nation to guarantee and deliver safe Games. Interestingly, in recent years, and especially following the 9/11 attacks, the international security environment in general has seen a major shift towards an understanding of security, which may be summarized as highly visible measures result in high levels of security. Strict and blatant security measures are therefore being implemented and, in turn, civil liberties and the personal freedom of the people are increasingly being sacrificed for a (fallacious) sense of security. This research demonstrates that similar mechanisms are at work when it comes to international sporting events. By having taken the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing and the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi as its two case studies, this thesis answers how security is being guaranteed during mega-sport events. Additionally, this paper tackles the question of whether the identified actions taken by the respective governments can be deemed reasonable, particularly in the light of the possible reductions in civil liberties and personal freedom that often go hand in hand. Ultimately, as the analysis examined the security measures taken, it assists in holding the individual strategies and implemented security measures accountable for their achievements as well as their negative side effects. In a final step, a comparative analysis between both cases has been conducted through the lens of the securitization approach and the critical application of securitization theory. The researcher was thereby able to identify major disparities as well as a smaller number of overlaps in how the two authoritarian regimes have engaged in securing the Olympics, respectively. Hence, providing evidence that regime type may not be a main indicator for securitization behavior. While this thesis nevertheless reveals how both host nations have utilized the Games for their own political purposes and agenda, it remains important to note that the researcher has intentionally aimed at placing special emphasis on the individual perspectives of both host nations. This included, focusing on how both nations understand themselves, their own history, and how they perceive the international community around them.
Abstract i
Acknowledgements iii
List of Charts and Figures vi

Chapter One: Introduction 1
1.1 Motivation and Purpose 2
1.2 Statement of the Problem and Research Questions 3
1.3 Literature Review 10
1.3.1 Literature Review on International Sporting Events and the Rise of Security 13
1.3.2 Review of the Two Selected Cases – Background on the Beijing and Sochi Olympics 20
1.3.3 Discussions on Civil Liberties 30
1.4 Analytical Framework and Research Method 34
1.5 Thesis Structure 39

Chapter Two: Beijing Olympics - Security Measures and Civil Liberties 42
2.1 The Securitization Process 42
2.2 Technologicalization and Civil Liberties 58
2.3 Warfare During Periods of Peace and Civil Liberties 64
2.4 Conclusion 67

Chapter Three: Sochi Olympics - Security Measures and Civil Liberties 69
3.1 The Securitization Process 69
3.2 Technologicalization and Civil Liberties 78
3.3. Warfare During Periods of Peace and Civil Liberties
3.4. Conclusion 84

Chapter Four: A Comparison between the Beijing Olympics and the Sochi Olympics 87
4.1 A Comparison with Regards to the Securitization
Process 87
4.2 A Comparison with Regards to Technologicalization and Civil Liberties 90
4.3 A Comparison with Regards to Warfare During Periods of Peace and Civil Liberties 93
4.4. Conclusion 94

Chapter Five: Conclusion 96
5.1 Significance and Implications of the Study 96
5.2 Research Limitations and Suggestions for Future Studies 103
References 106
Atkinson, M., and Young, K. (2002). Terror Games: Media Treatment of Security Issues at the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. Olympika: The International Journal of Olympic Studies, Volume 11, p. 53-78.

Barnett, R. (2009). The Tibet Protests of Spring 2008.
China Perspectives, 2009/3, p. 6-23.

Buzan, B., Wæver, O. and Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A
New Framework for Analysis. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Buzan, B. (2006). Will the ‘Global War on Terrorism’ be the New Cold War? International Affairs, Volume 82 (6), p. 1101-1118.

Callahan, W. (2010). China: The Pessoptimist Nation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Charrett, C. (2009). A Critical Application of Securitization Theory: Overcoming the Normative Dilemma of Writing Security. ICIP Working Papers Series 7.

Clark, K. (2004). Targeting the Olympics. U.S. News and World Report, Volume 136 (21), p. 34.

Coaffee, J. (2016). “Normalising Exceptional Public Space Security: The Spatial Fix of the Olympic Carceral” In Order and Conflict in Public Space, edited by Mattias De Backer, Lucas Melgaco, Georgiana Varna, and Francesca Menichelli (p. 15-36). London: Routledge.

Crelinsten, R. (2009). Counterterrorism. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Darmer, K., Baird, R., and Rosenbaum, S. (eds) (2004). Civil Liberties Versus National Security in a Post-9/11 World. New York: Prometheus Books.

Dershowitz, A. (2002). Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the Threat, Responding to the Challenge. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Dolinec, V. (2010). The Role of Mass Media in the Securitization Process of International Terrorism. Politicke Veshdy, Volume 13 (2), p. 8-32.

Donnelly. F. (2016). “Reframing the Olympic Games: Uncovering New Spatial Stories of (De)securitization” In Spartializing Peace and Conflict: Mapping the Production of Places, Sites and Scales of Violence, edited by Annika Björkdahl and Susanne Buckley-Zistel, (p. 198-217). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Drake, C. (1998). The Role of Ideology in Terrorists’ Target Selection. Terrorism and Political Violence, Volume 10 (2), p. 53-85.

Ewing, K., and Gearty, C. (2001). The Struggle for Civil Liberties: Political Freedom and the Rule of Law in Britain 1914-1945. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Farber, D. (2008). Security Versus Liberty: Conflicts Between Civil Liberties and National Security in American History. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Frosdick, S. (1997). “Beyond Football Hooliganism” In Sport and Safety Management, edited by Steve Frosdick and Lynne Walley, (p. 3-10). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Frosdick, S. and Walley, L. (1997). Sport and Safety Management. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Frosdick, S., and Chalmers, J. (2005). Safety and Security at Sports Grounds. London: Paragon Publishing.

Fussey, P., Coaffee, J., Armstrong, G., and Hobbs, D. (2016). Securing and Sustaining the Olympic City: Reconfiguring London for 2012 and Beyond. London: Routledge.

Hall, M., Timothy, D., and Duval, T. (2003). Safety and Security in Tourism: Relationships, Management, and Marketing. New York: Haworth Hospitality Press.

Hillman, B. (2014). Unrest in Tibet: Interpreting the post-2008 Wave of Protest and Conflict. Far East, Volume 4 (1), p. 50-60.

Human Rights Watch. (2007). Human Rights Watch World Report: Events of 2006. New York: Bookwell Publications.

Johnson, L. (2001). The Future of Terrorism. American Behavioral Scientist, Volume 44 (6), p. 894-913.

Kertzer, J. (2007). Seriousness, Grand Strategy, and Paradigm Shifts in the ‘War on Terror'. International Journal, Volume 62 (4), p. 961-979.

Kitsou, S. (2013). The Power of Culture in Diplomacy: The Case of U.S. Cultural Diplomacy in France and Germany. The Journal of Public Diplomacy, Vol. 2 (1), Art 3.

Lenskyi, H. (2014). Sexual Diversity and the Sochi 2014 Olympics: No more Rainbows. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

McCombs, M., and Shaw, D. (1972). The Agenda-Setting Function of the Mass Media. The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 2, p. 176-187.

Monahan, B. (2010). The Shock of the News: Media Coverage and the Making of 9/11. New York: New York University Press.

Orttung, R. and Zhemukhov, S. (2017). Putin’s Olympics: The Sochi Games and the Evolution of Twenty-First Century Russia. New York: Routledge.

Persson, E., and Petersson, B. (2014). Political Mythmaking and the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi: Olympism and the Russian Great Power Myth. East European Politics, Volume 30 (2), p. 192–209.

Petersson, B. (2013). “The Eternal Great Power Meets the Recurring Times of Troubles: Twin Political Myths in Contemporary Russian Politics” In European Cultural Memory Post-89, edited by Adrian Velicu, Conny Mithander, and John Sundholm (p. 301-330). Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Petersson, B. (2014). Still Embodying the Myth? Russia’s Recognition as a Great Power and the Sochi Winter Games, Problems of Post-Communism, Volume 61 (1), p. 30-40.

Prabha, K. (2000). Defining Terrorism. Strategic Analysis, Volume 24 (1), p. 125-135.

Reed, T., and Raschke, D. (2010). The ETIM: China’s Islamic Militants and the Global Terrorist Threat. Santa Barbara: Praeger.

Richards, A., Fussey, P., and Silke, A. (2011). Terrorism and the Olympics: Major Event Security and Lessons for the Future. New York: Routledge.

Roche, M. (2017). Mega-Events and Social Change: Spectacle, Legacy and Public Culture. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Rubin, A. (2004). Safety, Security, and Preparing for Disaster at Sporting Events. Current Sports Medicine Reports, Volume 3 (3), p. 141-145.

Schmid, A. and Jongman, J. (1988). Political Terrorism. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

Shevtsova, L. (2015). The Authoritarian Resurgence: Forward to the Past in Russia. Journal of Democracy, Volume 26 (2), p. 22-37.

Skaaning, S. (2006). Defining and Founding Civil Liberty. [online]. CDDRL Working Paper Number 56.

Smith, W. (2010). Tibet's Last Stand?: The Tibetan Uprising of 2008 and China's Response. Plymouth: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

Stura, C., Aicher, C., Kaspar, R., Klein, C., Schulz, S., and Unterlechner, S. (2017). „The UEFA Euro Championship 2020” In Routledge Handbook of International Sport Business, edited by Mark Dodds, Kevin Heisey, and Aila Ahonen, (p. 26-36). Abingdon: Routledge.

Toohey, K. and Taylor, T. (2008). Mega Events, Fear, and Risk: Terrorism at the Olympic Games. Journal of Sport Management, Volume 22, p. 451-469.

Travers, A., and Shearman, M. (2017). The Sochi Olympics, Celebration Capitalism, and Homonationalist Pride. Journal of Sports and Social Issues, Volume 41 (1) p. 42-69.

Wang, J. (2013). Shaping China's Global Imagination: Public Diplomacy through Communication. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Zimbalist, A. (2016). Circus Maximus: The Economic Gamble Behind Hosting the Olympics and the World Cup. Washington: Brookings.
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔