Strategic culture, securitisation and use of force after 11 September 2001: comparing the security policies and practices of liberal democracies at home and abroad
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation analyses the various factors that had an impact on decisions on the use of force by governments of liberal democratic states in the two-year period after 11 September 2001.It seeks to answer the question of why democratic states of similar size and strength reacted in different ways to the common threats that emerged with the events of that day.Specifically, it seeks to explain differences in the security policies and practices of Australia, Canada, France, Germany and the UK with respect to three key decisions which their respective governments faced in this period.Firstly, these states needed to decide whether and how they could contribute to the fight against terrorism abroad, especially in Afghanistan.Secondly, these states needed to decide on which measures to put in place for the prevention of terrorism domestically.Thirdly, as allies of the United States these countries had to decide on whether or not to participate in the Iraq War.Australia and the UK participated readily and sizeably in the fight against terrorism in Afghanistan, enacted harsh legal measures against terrorism domestically and participated in the Iraq War.Germany, on the other hand, showed more restraint in its participation in international efforts to fight terrorism, enacted more moderate anti-terror laws and categorically refused to participate in the Iraq War at an early point in time.Canada and France, meanwhile, participated in combat actions against terrorism in Afghanistan and enacted domestic counterterrorism policies in only a slightly more moderate way than Australia and the UK.They also decided not to participate in the Iraq War but only fully articulated this decision shortly before its outbreak.The five countries thus took coherently
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".