Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Law
Authorization Versus Regulation Of Detention In Non-International Armed Conflicts, Ryan Goodman
Authorization Versus Regulation Of Detention In Non-International Armed Conflicts, Ryan Goodman
International Law Studies
What does the law of armed conflict say about detention in non-international armed conflict? Is the law “utterly silent,” as some contend, with respect to the grounds for detention—regulating who may be confined and for what status or behavior? And do the in bello rules provide a source of affirmative authority that empowers belligerents to engage in detention? How those questions are resolved and, in particular, the basis for reaching the conclusions may have unintended consequences for the regulation of warfare. This article contends that the laws of war regulate the grounds for detention but do not authorize detention in …
Repatriate . . . Then Compensate: Why The United States Owes Reparation Payments To Former Guantánamo Detainees, Cameron Bell
Repatriate . . . Then Compensate: Why The United States Owes Reparation Payments To Former Guantánamo Detainees, Cameron Bell
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
In late 2001, U.S. government officials chose Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, as the site to house the “war on terror” detainees. Since then, 779 individuals have been detained at Guantánamo. Many of the detainees have endured years of detention, cruel and degrading treatment, and for some, torture—conduct that violates well-established prohibitions against torture and inhumane treatment under both general international law and the law of war. Under these bodies of law, the United States is required to make reparation—through restitution, compensation, and satisfaction—for acts that violate its international obligations. But the United States has not offered financial compensation to any Guantánamo …
The Ndaa, Aumf, And Citizens Detained Away From The Theater Of War: Sounding A Clarion Call For A Clear Statement Rule, Diana Cho
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
In the armed conflict resulting from the September 11 attacks, the executive authority to order the indefinite detention of citizens captured away from the theater of war is an issue of foreign and domestic significance. The relevant law of armed conflict provisions relevant to conflicts that are international or non-international in nature, however, do not fully address this issue. Congress also intentionally left the question of administrative orders of citizen detainment unresolved in a controversial provision of the 2012 version of the annually-enacted National Defense Authorization Act. While plaintiffs in Hedges v. Obama sought to challenge the enforceability of NDAA’s …
Searching For Remedial Paradigms: Human Rights In The Age Of Terrorism, Frances Howell Rudko
Searching For Remedial Paradigms: Human Rights In The Age Of Terrorism, Frances Howell Rudko
University of Massachusetts Law Review
Nine years after the unprecedented terrorist attacks on September 11, judicial response to various governmental and individual methods of combating terrorism remains deferential and restrained. The courts have heard at least three types of cases brought by advocates for three distinct groups: the alleged perpetrators of terrorism; the victims of terrorist attacks; and third party humanitarian groups. Implicit in the practical question of how to deal effectively with terrorism is the broader consideration which Congress, the President and others must also address: how to respond to the terrorists’ extreme human rights violations without violating international human rights norms and international …
Detention Status Review Process In Transnational Armed Conflict: Al Maquleh V. Gates, And The Parwan Detention Facility, Jody M. Prescott
Detention Status Review Process In Transnational Armed Conflict: Al Maquleh V. Gates, And The Parwan Detention Facility, Jody M. Prescott
University of Massachusetts Law Review
This article will first set out a brief history and description of the airfield at Bagram and the detention facilities there. Second, it will explore the standards under international law and the implement ation of national regulations by which the detention status of individuals detained by U.S. military forces is determined, when such individuals may be released from detention, and the significance of the evolving concept of transnational armed conflict to these determinations. Third, it will review the U.S. Supreme Court‘s decision in Boumediene, explore the Court‘s analysis in reaching its decision, and identify what the Court found to be …
Is There A Way Out Of The Non-International Armed Conflict Detention Dilemma?, Gabor Rona
Is There A Way Out Of The Non-International Armed Conflict Detention Dilemma?, Gabor Rona
International Law Studies
Detention in non-international armed conflicts (NIACs, or wars fought between States and non-State armed groups) is a time-honored military and humanitarian necessity. And yet, the principles of sovereignty, the texts of the law of armed conflict and international human rights law and the historical record leave little doubt: international law recognizes no inherent detention power in such wars. As long as NIACs were purely internal civil wars, there was little basis to question the exclusive role of domestic law in regulating detention of the enemy. With the advent of transnational NIACs, such as the war in Afghanistan involving multi-national forces …
Targeting And Detention In Non-International Armed Conflict: Serdar Mohammed And The Limits Of Human Rights Convergence, Aurel Sari, Sean Aughey
Targeting And Detention In Non-International Armed Conflict: Serdar Mohammed And The Limits Of Human Rights Convergence, Aurel Sari, Sean Aughey
International Law Studies
In recent years, the United Kingdom has seen a steady flow of legal challenges arising out of its involvement in the armed conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Among these, the case of Serdar Mohammed, decided by the English High Court in May 2014, is of particular interest because of its wider implications. In essence, the High Court’s judgment in Mohammed questions the existence of a legal basis under the law of armed conflict for the conduct of status-based operations in non-international armed conflicts. This article demonstrates that the restrictive approach adopted by the High Court in Mohammed is mistaken as …