Law Commons^™

Beyond Guantanamo: Restoring The Rule Of Law To The Law Of War, Claire Oakes Finkelstein, Harvey Rishikof

All Faculty Scholarship

In June 2021, CERL assembled a working group to address the difficult legal and policy questions that arise in anticipation of renewed attempts to close the Guantánamo detention facility. The CERL 2021 Working Group on Guantánamo Bay is co-chaired by Claire Finkelstein, a professor of criminal and national security law at the University of Pennsylvania and CERL’s faculty director, and Harvey Rishikof, former convening authority for the commissions and a visiting professor of national security law at Temple University. The group comprises over thirty national security and counterterrorism experts, retired military officers, lawyers, former Department of Justice officials, psychologists, psychiatrists, …

Newsroom: Closing Guantanamo Isn't Enough 03-14-2016, Jared Goldstein

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Detention Under The Law Of Armed Conflict, Chris Jenks

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Despite recent hard-earned experience during international and non-international armed conflicts in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, and in peacekeeping missions around the world, the international community continues to struggle practically and conceptually with detention of belligerents. The struggle includes questions ranging from when individuals may be detained and for how long, to determining the applicable legal regime. While this myriad of issues is vexing, they are neither as new, nor the applicable law as lacking, as has been argued.

This chapter takes a pragmatic approach to detention and suggests that the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocols, outmoded …

Reimagining The Wheel: Detention And Release Of Non-State Actors Under The Geneva Conventions, Chris Jenks

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

After more than a decade of sustained armed conflict, the international community continues to struggle with the issues posed by non-State actors participating in hostilities. Issues range from the micro, of if and when individuals may be targeted and detained, to the macro if not meta level of which legal regime to apply. This chapter considers detention from a pragmatic approach and proposes that the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols I and II, outmoded and seemingly inapplicable though they are in some respects, offer the most thorough, humane, realistic and readily available option for determining how to treat and …

The Ssci Report And Its Critics: Torturing Efficacy, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Janus Moon Rising - Why 2014 Heralds United States' Detention Policy On A Collision Course...With Itself, Chris Jenks

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

2014 will serve as a test of the United States’ claims that its detention policy is consistent with the law of armed conflict (LOAC). If, as President Obama has repeatedly stated, U.S. involvement in the armed conflict in Afghanistan will end this year, then any LOAC based detention of belligerents linked solely to that conflict ends as well. That should mean the release or transfer of members of the Taliban currently detained at Guantanamo. It won’t.

Al-Libi And Detention At Sea, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Legal Dilemma Of Guantanamo Detainees From Bush To Obama [Updated], Linda A. Malone

Faculty Publications

The stage for the Guantanamo detainees’ commission proceedings was set by the interplay between the Executive’s detention powers and the Judiciary’s habeas powers. The Bush administration turned to Congress to provide less than what was required by the court, instead of the minimum deemed necessary to comply with each decision, or to explore another legal argument for not complying. This article examines how the law for the Guantanamo detainees has been shaped by the US courts and by Congress. The article begins by observing the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court for compliance with the constitutional and humanitarian law requirements, …

The Legal Dilemma Of Guantánamo Detainees From Bush To Obama, Linda A. Malone

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

On The Contemporary Meaning Of Korematsu: 'Liberty Lies In The Hearts Of Men And Women', David A. Harris

Articles

In just a few years, seven decades will have passed since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Korematsu v. U.S., one of the most reviled of all of the Court’s cases. Despised or not, however, similarities between the World War II era and our own have people looking at Korematsu in a new light. When the Court decided Korematsu in 1944, we were at war with the Japanese empire, and with this came considerable suspicion of anyone who shared the ethnicity of our foreign enemies. Since 2001, we have faced another external threat – from the al Queda terrorists – …

Searching For Remedial Paradigms: Human Rights In The Age Of Terrorism, Frances Howell Rudko

Faculty Publications

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 humanitarian law.

The Choice Of Law Against Terrorism, Mary Ellen O'Connell

Journal Articles

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.

A New System Of Preventative Detention - Let's Take A Deep Breath, Jennifer Daskal

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

Some have argued that the detention center at Guantanamo Bay cannot be closed until the U.S. passes new preventive detention laws that would allow it to detain those who cannot be tried but are considered too dangerous to release. This article rejects these claims, concluding that the existing criminal justice system can adequately deal with those who the U.S. should be seeking to detain. The article also warns of the costs of trying to set up an entirely new system of detention without charge. The article cautions that such a system will negate many of the reputational gains associated with …

Military Justice At Abu Ghraib, Jeffrey F. Addicott

Faculty Articles

Previous efforts to denigrate the credibility of U.S. war policies in the War on Terror pale in the wake of the prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib. Photographic evidence of American soldiers abusing detainees created a firestorm of allegations concerning illegal interrogation practices and threatened to derail fundamental legal and policy pillars upon which America conducts the War on Terror. It raised the question of whether the prison abuse reflected a systemic policy to illegally obtain information from detainees or isolated acts of criminal behavior by a handful of soldiers. Thanks to several investigative reports, the legal and policy pillars …