Law Commons^™

Why Outlaw Laws?: An Argument For A Probationary Period For Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems Under Meaningful Human Control., Katherine E. Vuyk

The University of Cincinnati Intellectual Property and Computer Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Oslo Accords: A Modern-Day Story Of Occupation Told Through Violations Of The Right To Freedom Of Privacy, Catherine Demetrovich

Indiana Law Journal

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict began in the early 1900s when the disputed land, what is now the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, fell under British rule. After the Six- Day War in 1967, Israel took control of the West Bank, Golan Heights, and the Gaza Strip. Since then, tensions between Israel and Palestine have continued to grow. This Note explores a modern-day occupation question: Israel’s control over Palestine’s information and communication technology (ICT) sector. Along with privacy and human rights violations, Israel’s control is in direct violation of the Oslo Accords— guaranteeing Palestinians limited self-governance in Gaza and the West …

The Lieber Code: A Historical Analysis Of The Context And Drafting Of General Orders No. 100, Alexander H. Mindrup

The Cardinal Edge

During the American Civil War, the United States changed in dramatic fashion. The national crisis of the Civil War encompassed all aspects of the United States. In 1862, a forward-thinking German American intellectual named Francis Lieber lobbied the Lincoln administration to update the United States laws of war. On April 24, 1863, President Lincoln issued General Orders No. 100 or “Instructions for the Government of the Armies of the United States in the Field.” General Orders No. 100, better known as the Lieber Code, modernized the United States laws of war. Not only that, but the Lieber Code traveled across …

Fire, Aim, Ready! Militarizing Animus: “Unit Cohesion” And The Transgender Ban, Eric Merriam

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

President Trump’s currently litigated “transgender ban,” which excludes transgender persons from military service, is premised in part upon a claim that transgender persons’ presence in the military adversely affects “unit cohesion.” This use of identity- based “unit cohesion” as a justification for excluding a group from military service is the latest episode in a long history of the government asserting “unit cohesion” to justify excluding people from military service based on their identities. This Article contends that unit cohesion, when premised on identity, is always an impermissible justification for exclusion from military service because it is unconstitutional animus. Though …

The Bergdahl Block: How The Military Limits Public Access To Preliminary Hearings And What We Can Do About It, Eric R. Carpenter

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl and Private First Class Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning have something in common. Military officials unlawfully closed all or portions of their preliminary hearings to the public. When doing so, military officials exploited two unusual features of the military justice system, thereby denying the accused and the media of their respective Sixth Amendment and First Amendment rights to a public hearing.

The first feature is that the military justice system does not include a standing trial-level court. If there is a problem at the preliminary hearing, the accused and media have nowhere to go for help. The accused …

Needed: An Independent Military Judiciary- A Proposal To Amend The Uniform Code Of Military Justice, Fredric I. Lederer, Barbara S. Hundley

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Culver V. Secretary Of The Air Force: Restriction Of Servicemen's Individual Freedoms Abroad For Foreign Policy Reasons

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

"Time Of War" And The War Powers Resolution, Terry Moorehead Dworkin

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law, Various Editors

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Honorable Discharge: A Farewell To Responsibility For War Crimes?, Charles W. Boohar Jr.

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Military Law - Persons Subject To The Uniform Code Of Military Justice. United States V. Averette, 19 U.S.C.M.A. 363, 41 C.M.R. 363 (1970), Charles W. Boohar Jr.

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

O'Callahan And Its Progeny: A Survey Of Their Impact On The Jurisdiction Of Courts-Martial, John F. Depue

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Court-Martial Jurisdiction: The Effect Of O'Callahan V. Parker, Fred K. Morrison

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Book Review Of Civilians Under Military Justice: The British Practice Since 1689, Especially In North America, Robert E. Quinn

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Hazardous Duty In Short Desertion: The Formulation Of Military Law Concepts, Alfred Avins

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Book Review Of The Law Of Awol, Montgomery Knight Jr.

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

The President And Military Power In Emergencies, Charles Mccamic

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Amenability Of Military Persons To The Laws Of The Land, Charles E. Smoyter

Michigan Law Review

I. To. United States Courts. 2. To State Courts. 3. To Military Courts. General Principles of Amenability-Courts and text writers not unfrequently enunciate as a general principle that military authority is subordinate to civil law. Accepted literally, the broad statement can be sustained by neither law nor precedent. The federal constitution provides for three kinds of military jurisdiction: (a) That known as Military Law, designed to be exercised both in time of peace and war and acquiring its authenticity from the acts of Congress prescribing army regulations and the rules and articles of war, as well as from the established …

Military Law: Should Military Personnel Be Court-Martialed For Offenses That Are Not Service-Connected?, Gerald A. Williams

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.