Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Terrorism (15)
- Military, War and Peace (8)
- International Law (7)
- International law (5)
- War on terror (5)
-
- Constitutional Law (4)
- United States (4)
- War (4)
- 9/11 (3)
- Criminal Law and Procedure (3)
- Human Rights Law (3)
- International Humanitarian Law (3)
- Military (3)
- September 11 (3)
- Supreme Court (3)
- Tribunal (3)
- Use of force (3)
- 2001 (2)
- 9 11 (2)
- Afghanistan (2)
- Alfred Dreyfus (2)
- Defamation (2)
- Detention (2)
- Due process (2)
- Emile Zola (2)
- Enemy combatants (2)
- Evidence (2)
- France (2)
- Frank (2)
- Gary Shaw (2)
- Publication
-
- Mary Ellen O'Connell (9)
- Mark A. Drumbl (3)
- Douglass Cassel (2)
- Gregor Noll (2)
- Andrew Norris (1)
-
- Ashutosh Bhagwat (1)
- Collin Allan (1)
- Craig Martin (1)
- David Brian Dennison (1)
- Eileen Kaufman (1)
- Elisa Poteat (1)
- Gary M. Shaw (1)
- Jillian Blake (1)
- Jimmy Gurule (1)
- Judith L Ritter (1)
- Kevin H. Govern (1)
- Matt C Pinsker (1)
- Michael A Pipa (1)
- Nick J. Sciullo (1)
- Paul R Rickert (1)
- Peter Zablotsky (1)
- Robert Bloom (1)
- Robert Rodes (1)
- Rodger Citron (1)
- Rymn J Parsons, Esq. (1)
- Stephen P. Hoffman (1)
- Susana L. SáCouto (1)
- Wayne McCormack (1)
- Yevgeny S Vindman (1)
- andrew j norris (1)
Articles 1 - 30 of 42
Full-Text Articles in Law
On Clandestine Warfare, Robert E. Rodes
On Clandestine Warfare, Robert E. Rodes
Robert Rodes
Common moral judgments on many types of clandestine warfare, referred to by some as terrorism, seem to be more nuanced and less severe than our current legal judgments. This paper begins by offering a detailed typology of clandestine operations and measures to combat them, a few general reflections on the laws of war, and a critique of those laws as they now stand. It then proposes a substantial revision of the laws which govern clandestine warfare based on four basic principles of the laws and the morality of just war: the independence of jus in bello from the jus ad …
To Kill Or Capture Suspects In The Global War On Terror, Mary Ellen O'Connell
To Kill Or Capture Suspects In The Global War On Terror, Mary Ellen O'Connell
Mary Ellen O'Connell
Presents a speech by law professor Mary Ellen O'Connell, delivered at the Case Western Reserve School of Law's War Crimes Research Symposium, February 28, 2003. Legal implications of pursuing terror suspects using military action by the U.S. government; Components of armed conflict; Analysis of the United States' involvement in the internal armed conflict in the Philippines.
The Choice Of Law Against Terrorism, Mary Ellen O'Connell
The Choice Of Law Against Terrorism, Mary Ellen O'Connell
Mary Ellen O'Connell
The Obama administration has continued to apply the wartime paradigm first developed by the Bush administration after 9/11 to respond to terrorism. In cases of trials before military commissions, indefinite detention, and targeted killing, the U.S. has continued to claim wartime privileges even with respect to persons and situations far from any battlefield. This article argues that both administrations have made a basic error in the choice of law. Wartime privileges may be claimed when armed conflict conditions prevail as defined by international law. These privileges are not triggered by declarations or policy preferences.
The Legal Case Against The Global War On Terror, Mary Ellen O'Connell
The Legal Case Against The Global War On Terror, Mary Ellen O'Connell
Mary Ellen O'Connell
No abstract provided.
Lawful Self-Defense To Terrorism, Mary Ellen O'Connell
Lawful Self-Defense To Terrorism, Mary Ellen O'Connell
Mary Ellen O'Connell
No abstract provided.
Elihu Root And Crisis Prevention, Mary Ellen O'Connell
Elihu Root And Crisis Prevention, Mary Ellen O'Connell
Mary Ellen O'Connell
No abstract provided.
American Exceptionalism And The International Law Of Self-Defense, Mary Ellen O'Connell
American Exceptionalism And The International Law Of Self-Defense, Mary Ellen O'Connell
Mary Ellen O'Connell
No abstract provided.
Continuing Limits On Un Intervention In Civil War, Mary Ellen O'Connell
Continuing Limits On Un Intervention In Civil War, Mary Ellen O'Connell
Mary Ellen O'Connell
No abstract provided.
The End Of Legitimacy, Mary Ellen O'Connell
The End Of Legitimacy, Mary Ellen O'Connell
Mary Ellen O'Connell
No abstract provided.
Preserving The Peace: The Continuing Ban On War Between States, Mary Ellen O'Connell
Preserving The Peace: The Continuing Ban On War Between States, Mary Ellen O'Connell
Mary Ellen O'Connell
The history of international law is, in large part, about the development of restraints on states' right to resort to force in dealing with external conflicts. Today, states may use force only in self-defense to an armed attack or with Security Council authorization. Even in these cases, states may use force only as a last resort, and then only if doing so will not disproportionately harm civilians, their property, or the natural environment. These rules restricting force are found in treaties (especially the United Nations Charter), customary international law, and the general principles of international law. In other words, the …
The Voice Of Reason—Why Recent Judicial Interpretations Of The Antiterrorism And Effective Death Penalty Act’S Restrictions On Habeas Corpus Are Wrong, Judith L. Ritter
The Voice Of Reason—Why Recent Judicial Interpretations Of The Antiterrorism And Effective Death Penalty Act’S Restrictions On Habeas Corpus Are Wrong, Judith L. Ritter
Judith L Ritter
By filing a petition for a federal writ of habeas corpus, a prisoner initiates a legal proceeding collateral to the direct appeals process. Federal statutes set forth the procedure and parameters of habeas corpus review. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) first signed into law by President Clinton in 1996, included significant cut-backs in the availability of federal writs of habeas corpus. This was by congressional design. Yet, despite the dire predictions, for most of the first decade of AEDPA’s reign, the door to habeas relief remained open. More recently, however, the Supreme Court reinterpreted a key portion …
Deference Or Abdication: A Comparison Of The Supreme Courts Of Israel And The United States In Cases Involving Real Or Perceived Threats To National Security, Eileen Kaufman
Eileen Kaufman
The Supreme Courts of Israel and the United States treat cases involving national security radically differently, or so it appears on the surface. The fact that the two courts make very different use of justiciability doctrines dramatically affects their willingness to decide “war on terrorism” cases that challenge aspects of national security programs as violative of individual rights. On the surface, the approaches of the two courts thus appear to be radically different, and indeed they are, at least with respect to their willingness to hear and decide cases in “real time” and in terms of their willingness to embrace …
Terrorism, Territorial Sovereignty, And The Forcible Apprehension Of International Criminals Abroad, Jimmy Gurule
Terrorism, Territorial Sovereignty, And The Forcible Apprehension Of International Criminals Abroad, Jimmy Gurule
Jimmy Gurule
No abstract provided.
Defending Human Rights In The "War" Against Terror, Douglass Cassel
Defending Human Rights In The "War" Against Terror, Douglass Cassel
Douglass Cassel
No abstract provided.
The United States Supreme Court Rulings Of Detention On "Enemy Combatants" - Partial Vindication Of The Rule Of Law, Douglass Cassel
The United States Supreme Court Rulings Of Detention On "Enemy Combatants" - Partial Vindication Of The Rule Of Law, Douglass Cassel
Douglass Cassel
No abstract provided.
Border Searches In The Age Of Terrorism, Robert M. Bloom
Border Searches In The Age Of Terrorism, Robert M. Bloom
Robert Bloom
This article will first explore the history of border searches. It will look to the reorganization of the border enforcement apparatus resulting from 9/11 as well as the intersection of the Fourth Amendment and border searches generally. Then, it will analyze the Supreme Court's last statement on border searches in the Flores-Montano27 decision, including what impact this decision has had on the lower courts. Finally, the article will focus on Fourth Amendment cases involving terrorism concerns after 9/11, as a means of drawing some conclusions about the effect the emerging emphasis on terrorism and national security concerns will likely have …
Ucmj Article 66(C) And The Case To End The Courts Of Criminal Appeals De Novo Review Of Factual Sufficiency, Matt C. Pinsker
Ucmj Article 66(C) And The Case To End The Courts Of Criminal Appeals De Novo Review Of Factual Sufficiency, Matt C. Pinsker
Matt C Pinsker
Under UCMJ Article 66(c), the military’s courts of criminal appeals have the unusual appellate power of conducting a de novo review of a trial court’s findings of fact. Congress gave the military’s appellate courts their unusual fact-finding powers in 1950 because under the original UCMJ, special and general courts-martials were highly unprofessional proceedings which were susceptible to command influence, creating the risk of unjustly convicting innocent servicemembers. Originally, there were not even judges presiding at summary courts-martials. Instead, a senior line officer untrained in law was designated president of the panel and was responsible for making legal decisions such as …
Lessons Learned From Pakistan: A Dissertation On The Bush-Obama Drone Doctrine, Michael A. Pipa
Lessons Learned From Pakistan: A Dissertation On The Bush-Obama Drone Doctrine, Michael A. Pipa
Michael A Pipa
The first use of the modern day attack drone by the United States was in Afghanistan in mid 2002, and for the past 11 years attack drones have been used by the United States in as many countries as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. When considering the alternatives to using drones, such as sending marines on the ground to complete a mission or flying a piloted jet over enemy territory to gather intelligence, as well as the military power that the use of these vehicles projects, the attack drone has become the weapon of choice in the war on terror for …
U.S. Judicial Independence: Victim In The “War On Terror”, Wayne Mccormack
U.S. Judicial Independence: Victim In The “War On Terror”, Wayne Mccormack
Wayne McCormack
One of the principal victims in the U.S. so-called "war on terror" has been the independence of the U.S. Judiciary. Time and again, challenges to assertedly illegal conduct on the part of government officials have been turned aside without addressing the merits, either because of overt deference to the Government or because of special doctrines such as state secrets and standing requirements. This paper catalogs the principal cases first by the nature of the government action challenged and then by the special doctrines invoked. The U.S. judiciary has virtually relinquished its valuable role of judicial review. In the face of …
A Maelstrom Of International Law And Intrigue: The Remarkable Voyage Of The S.S. City Of Flint, Andrew J. Norris
A Maelstrom Of International Law And Intrigue: The Remarkable Voyage Of The S.S. City Of Flint, Andrew J. Norris
Andrew Norris
No abstract provided.
Kiobel, Extraterritoriality, And The "Global War On Terrorism", Craig Martin
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 …
Considering The Libel Trial Of Émile Zola In Light Of Contemporary Defamation Doctrine, Peter A. Zablotsky
Considering The Libel Trial Of Émile Zola In Light Of Contemporary Defamation Doctrine, Peter A. Zablotsky
Peter Zablotsky
Touro Law School's three-day conference on the Dreyfus affair provided an opportunity to re-examine the libel trial Émile Zola. A modern view on tort law is provided to analyze this case as if it unfolded today.
Due Process In American Military Tribunals After September 11, 2001, Gary Shaw
Due Process In American Military Tribunals After September 11, 2001, Gary Shaw
Gary M. Shaw
The Authorization for Use of Military Force ("AUMF") provides broad powers for a president after September 11, 2001. President Bush, under the AUMF, claimed he had the power to hold "enemy combatants" without due process. This gave rise to two questions that the article addresses: "Could they be held indefinitely without charges or proceedings being initiated? If proceedings had to be initiated, what process was due to the defendants?"
Introduction: Persecution Through Prosecution: Revisiting Touro Law Center’S Conference In Paris On The Dreyfus Affair And The Leo Frank Trial, Rodger D. Citron
Introduction: Persecution Through Prosecution: Revisiting Touro Law Center’S Conference In Paris On The Dreyfus Affair And The Leo Frank Trial, Rodger D. Citron
Rodger Citron
This piece provides the introduction for the Dreyfus affair. It gives a brief overview of the actual Dreyfus affair and outlines the articles in this volume.
Legal Issues Associated With Unmanned Maritime Systems, Andrew J. Norris
Legal Issues Associated With Unmanned Maritime Systems, Andrew J. Norris
andrew j norris
No abstract provided.
Combatant Immunity In Non-International Armed Conflict, Past And Future, Rymn J. Parsons
Combatant Immunity In Non-International Armed Conflict, Past And Future, Rymn J. Parsons
Rymn J Parsons, Esq.
No abstract provided.
Direct Participation In Hostilities From Cyberspace, Collin Allan
Direct Participation In Hostilities From Cyberspace, Collin Allan
Collin Allan
As demonstrated by the cyber attacks against Georgia in 2008 and the cyber attacks against Aramco in 2012, civilians are increasing their participation in armed conflicts through cyber attacks. In 2009, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) published a document on how to determine when a civilian’s participation in armed conflict reaches the necessary level to render him or her targetable by one of the parties to the conflict. The Tallinn Manual was published this year to provide legal guidance in cyber situations. While professionals have written in this area previously, it is the first time that experts …
Terrorism And Associations, Ashutosh A. Bhagwat
Terrorism And Associations, Ashutosh A. Bhagwat
Ashutosh Bhagwat
The domestic manifestation of the War on Terror has produced the most difficult and sustained set of controversies regarding the limits on First Amendment protections for political speech and association since the anti-Communist crusades of the Red Scare and McCarthy eras. An examination of the types of domestic terrorism prosecutions that have become common since the September 11 attacks reveals continuing and unresolved conflicts between national security needs and traditional protections for speech and (especially) associational freedoms. Yet the courts have barely begun to acknowledge, much less address, these serious issues. In the Supreme Court’s only sustained engagement with these …
Cipa V. State Secrets: How A Few Mistakes Confused Two Important National Security Privileges, Elisa Poteat
Cipa V. State Secrets: How A Few Mistakes Confused Two Important National Security Privileges, Elisa Poteat
Elisa Poteat
No abstract provided.
The Push To Criminalize Aggression: Something Lost Amid The Gains?, Mark A. Drumbl
The Push To Criminalize Aggression: Something Lost Amid The Gains?, Mark A. Drumbl
Mark A. Drumbl
The International Criminal Court has jurisdiction over the crime of aggression, but the Rome Statute fails to define the crime. A Special Work- ing Group on the Crime of Aggression, however, has made considerable progress in developing a definition. The consensus that has emerged favors a narrow definition. Three characteristics animate this consensus: (1) that state action is central to the crime; (2) that acts of aggression involve inter- state armed conflict; and (3) that criminal responsibility attaches only to very top political or military leaders. This Article normatively challenges this consensus. I argue that expanding the scope of the …