เรื่อง: A Comparison of Australian and Thai National Intelligence Accountability Frameworks, (วปอ.9182)
|
|
หมวดหมู่:
|
งานวิจัย
|
มิติ:
|
มิติยุทธศาสตร์/Strategy
|
พื้นที่/ขอบเขต:
|
ภายในประเทศ/Domestic/Local
|
ผู้เขียน:
|
วิทยาลัยป้องกันราชอาณาจักร, Colonel Stephen Fomiatti, (วปอ.9182)
|
หน่วยงานเจ้าของ:
|
วิทยาลัยป้องกันราชอาณาจักร
|
ปีที่พิมพ์:
|
2562
|
จำนวนหน้า:
|
|
การเปิดเผยข้อมูล:
|
สาธารณะ
|
|
บทคัดย่อ:
ติดต่อหน่วยเจ้าของ (N/A)
abstract:
i
Abstract
Title : A Comparison of Australian and Thai National Intelligence
Accountability Frameworks
Field : Strategy
Name : Colonel Stephen Fomiatti, Australian Army
Course : NDC Class : 62
As part of a more general trend in government, greater degrees
of scrutiny and oversight in corporate governance and accountability have
developed within the Australian National Intelligence Community (NIC),
along with increased attention to citizen rights. The continuum of
accountability relationships developed between the public, the Parliament,
the Government and the various agencies of the NIC has resulted in a
high degree of transparency in NIC activities, ensuring agencies act
legally and with propriety, comply with ministerial guidelines and respect
human rights.
Thailand’s recent political history has been rather more unsettled
than Australia’s, with coups in 2006 and 2014. This has led to periods of
military government and internal instability, a situation that doesn’t
necessarily lend itself to increased transparency and enhanced accountability.
Thai support for security sector reform has traditionally been temporary
and poorly organised, and there are no Thai civil society groups who
regularly monitor the agencies of the Thai Intelligence Community (TIC).
This is not to say however, that all NIC and TIC activity is, should
or must be conducted completely in the open. The purpose of secrecy is
to facilitate the proper functioning of government, but it needs to be ii
balanced against other competing public interests including the public’s
right to know. It is the role of both internal and external accountability
frameworks to ensure this balance is maintained, minimising community
apprehension pertaining to national intelligence activities and damage to
the trust relationship between the Government and its constituency.
The internal accountability framework residing within the
Australian governmental departments that NIC agencies belong to is
implemented on three levels: individual, committee and organisational.
External accountability is im plem ented through legislation; the
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security; committees
of Cabinet including the National Security Committee of Cabinet and the
Secretaries’ Committee on National Security; courts, tribunals and
ombudsmen; and an oversight body in the Inspector General of Intelligence
and Security.
A s in other region al cou ntries, several G overnm en t
departments and the military control TIC agency operations. Although
TIC agencies prioritise operational effectiveness and the maintenance of
national security over being held accountable to the public, there are clear
accountability frameworks in place that are similar in nature to the
Australian intelligence accountability system, both internal and external,
if not as well defined as the Australian system. Internal accountability is
implemented through clear and unambiguous command and control
structures, with their responsibilities and obligations detailed by legal and
regulatory contexts. External accountability is implemented through
legislation; parliamentary committees and commissions; courts, tribunals
and ombudsmen. iii
A comparative analysis of the two accountability frameworks
reveals scope for enhancement of the Thai system through clearly
defining and implementing the intelligence accountability framework,
strengthening it through broader organisational rem its and the
establishment of an independent oversight body, publicising the system
and developing it further over time.
