犧牲值得嗎？ 奧運安全措施與侵犯公民自由

Abstract

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.