Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Digital Commons Network

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 5 of 5

Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network

Contemporary Practice Of The United States Relating To International Law, Kristina Daugirdas, Julian Davis Mortenson Oct 2017

Contemporary Practice Of The United States Relating To International Law, Kristina Daugirdas, Julian Davis Mortenson

Articles

In this section: Congress Enacts Sanctions Legislation Targeting Russia • United States and Qatar Sign Memorandum of Understanding over Terrorism Financing • Trump Reverses Certain Steps Toward Normalizing Relations with Cuba • United States Announces Plans to Withdraw from Paris Agreement on Climate Change • President Trump Issues Trade-Related Executive Orders and Memoranda • United States, Russia, and Jordan Sign Limited Ceasefire for Syria • Trump Administration Recertifies Iranian Compliance with JCPOA Notwithstanding Increasing Concern with Iranian Behavior


The Perilous Dialogue, Laura K. Donohue Apr 2009

The Perilous Dialogue, Laura K. Donohue

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The master metaphor in the national security dialogue is, indeed, “security or freedom”. It dominates the counterterrorist discourse both in the United States and abroad. Transcripts from debates in Ireland’s Dáil Éireann, Turkey’s Büyük Millet Meclisi, and Australia’s Parliament are filled with reference to the need to weigh the value of liberty against the threat posed by terrorism. Perhaps nowhere is this more pronounced than in the United Kingdom, where, for decades, counterterrorist debates have turned on this framing. Owing in part, though, to different constitutional structures, what “security or freedom” means in America differs from what it means in …


The Twenty Year Test: Principles For An Enduring Counterterrorism Legal Architecture, James E. Baker Jan 2008

The Twenty Year Test: Principles For An Enduring Counterterrorism Legal Architecture, James E. Baker

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The United States faces three enduring terrorism-related threats. First, there is the realistic prospect of additional attacks in the United States including attacks using weapons of mass destruction (“WMD”). Second, in responding to this threat, we may undermine the freedoms that enrich our lives, the tolerance that marks our society, and the democratic values that define our government. Third, if we are too focused on terrorism, we risk losing sight of this century’s other certain threats as well as the capacity to respond to them, including the state proliferation of nuclear weapons, nation-state rivalry, pandemic disease, oil dependency, and environmental …


What’S International Law Got To Do With It? Transnational Law And The Intelligence Mission, James E. Baker Jan 2007

What’S International Law Got To Do With It? Transnational Law And The Intelligence Mission, James E. Baker

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The United States faces an immediate and continuous threat of terrorist attack using weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. The intelligence function and national security law, including international law--or more accurately transnational law--are central to addressing this threat. Indeed, international law is more relevant today in addressing this threat than it was before September 11. Part II of this article describes a continuum of contemporary threats to U.S. national security, with a focus on nonstate terrorism. Part III addresses the role of intelligence and national security law, and in particular law addressed to process, in combating these threats. Part …


Catastrophic Terrorism- Thinking Fearfully, Acting Legally, Barry Kellman Jan 1999

Catastrophic Terrorism- Thinking Fearfully, Acting Legally, Barry Kellman

Michigan Journal of International Law

The time has come to move beyond howls of alarm to a public discussion of what policies should be adopted or reformed. That discussion should proceed even as crucial questions remain only partially answerable: How realistic is the possibility of catastrophic terrorism? How easy is it to make a catastrophic device that actually works? Why would any person or group want to kill hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of innocent victims?