Digital Commons Network^™

Kiobel, Extraterritoriality, And The "Global War On Terrorism", Craig Martin

Craig Martin

For the purpose of exploring the issues of extraterritoriality raised in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., this project sought to examine how the federal courts have considered extraterritoriality in cases arising in the so-called “global war on terror” (GWOT). The inquiry leads to some new and arguably important observations about extraterritoriality in the GWOT policies and related jurisprudence. The plaintiffs in Kiobel claimed, under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), that the defendant corporations were liable for complicity in Nigeria’s conduct of indefinite detention, torture, and extrajudicial killing. The U.S. Supreme Court departed from the issue of corporate liability under …

Going Medieval: Targeted Killing, Self-Defense, And The Jus Ad Bellum Regime, Craig Martin

Craig Martin

The U.S. targeted killing policy employs drone-launched missiles to kill suspected terrorists and insurgents in countries in which the U.S. is not clearly involved in an armed conflict. It has justified the program on two bases: that the U.S. is in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda and associated organizations; and that the U.S. can engage in the strikes as an exercise of self-defence. These strikes constitute a use of force against the states in which the targets are located, in jus ad bellum terms, and the claim to the right of self-defence is similarly reliance upon a jus ad …

A Constitutional Case For Amending Article 9, Craig Martin

Craig Martin

Taking War Seriously: A Model For Constitutional Constraints On The Use Of Force, In Compliance With International Law, Craig Martin

Craig Martin

This article develops an argument for increased constitutional control over the decision to use armed force or engage in armed conflict, as a means of reducing the incidence of illegitimate armed conflict. In particular, the Model would involve three elements: a process-based constitutional incorporation of the principles of international law relating to the use of force (the jus ad bellum regime); a constitutional requirement that the legislature approve any use of force rising above a de minimus level; and an explicit provision for limited judicial review of the decision-making process. The Model is not designed with any one country in …

The Japanese Constitution As Law And The Legitimacy Of The Supreme Court’S Constitutional Decisions: A Response To Matsui, Craig Martin

Craig Martin

This article, from a conference at Washington University School of Law on the Supreme Court of Japan, responds to an article by Shigenori Matsui, “Why is the Japanese Supreme Court is so conservative?” Professor Matsui’s article makes the argument that a significant factor is the extent to which the judges fail to view the Constitution as positive law requiring judicial enforcement. It is novel in its emphasis on an explanation grounded in law, and the decision-making process, rather than the political, institutional, and cultural explanations that are so often offered. In this article, Borrowing from Kermit Roosevelt’s arguments on judicial …

Glimmers Of Hope: The Evolution Of Equality Rights Doctrine In Japanese Courts From A Comparative Perspective, Craig Martin

Craig Martin

There has been little study of the analytical framework employed by the Japanese courts in resolving constitutional claims under the right to be treated as an equal and not be discriminated against. In the Japanese literature the only comparative analysis done focuses on American equal protection jurisprudence. This article examines the development of the equality rights doctrine in the Japanese Supreme Court from the perspective of an increasingly universal “proportionality analysis” approach to rights enforcement, of which the Canadian equality rights jurisprudence is a good example, in contrast to the American approach. This comparative analysis, which begins with a review …

Binding The Dogs Of War: Japan And The Constitutionalizing Of Jus Ad Bellum, Craig Martin

Craig Martin

There is still very little constitutional control over the decision to use armed force, and very limited domestic implementation of the international principles of jus ad bellum, notwithstanding the increasing overlap between international and domestic legal systems and the spread of constitutional democracy. The relationship between constitutional and international law constraints on the use of armed force has a long history. Aspects of constitutional theory, liberal theories of international law, and transnational process theory of international law compliance, suggest that constitutional design could legitimately be used as a pre-commitment device to lock-in jus ad bellum principles, and thereby enhance compliance …