Military, War, and Peace 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, …

Roundtable Discussion Transcript: The Legal And Ethical Limits Of Technological Warfare Symposium, February 1, 2013, University Of Utah, S.J. Quinney College Of Law, Amos N. Guiora, Harry Soyster, David R. Irvine, Geoffrey S. Corn, James Jay Carafano, Claire O. Finkelstein, Laurie R. Blank, Monica Hakimi, George R. Lucas, Trevor W. Morrison, Frederic Megret

All Faculty Scholarship

The Utah Law Review brought in a panel of experts for a symposium on the legal and ethical limits of technological warfare. This roundtable discussion crystalized the issues discussed throughout the symposium. The collective experience and diversity of viewpoints of the panelists produced an unparalleled discussion of the complex and poignant issues involved in drone warfare. The open dialogue in the roundtable discussion created moments of tension where the panelists openly challenged each other’s viewpoints on the ethics and legality of drone warfare. The discussion captured in this transcript uniquely conveys the diversity of perspectives and inherently challenging legal and …

Advantaging Aggressors: Justice & Deterrence In International Law, Paul H. Robinson, Adil Ahmad Haque

All Faculty Scholarship

Current international law imposes limitations on the use of force to defend against unlawful aggression that improperly advantage unlawful aggressors and disadvantage their victims. The Article gives examples of such rules, governing a variety of situations, showing how clearly unjust they can be. No domestic criminal law system would tolerate their use.

There are good practical reasons why international law should care that its rules are perceived as unjust. Given the lack of an effective international law enforcement mechanism, compliance depends to a large degree upon the moral authority with which international law speaks. Compliance is less likely when its …

Adoption Of The Responsibility To Protect, William W. Burke-White

All Faculty Scholarship

This book chapter traces the legal and political origins of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine from its early origins in the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty through the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document and up to January 2011. The chapter examines the legal meaning of the Responsibility to Protect, the obligations the Responsibility imposes on states and international institutions, and its implications in for the international legal and political systems. The chapter argues that while the Responsibility to Protect has developed with extraordinary speed, it is still a norm in development rather than a binding legal rule. Its …

Torture And The Biopolitics Of Race, Dorothy E. Roberts

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Great Writ Of Incoherence: An Analysis Of Supreme Court's Rulings On "Enemy Combatants", Gregory Dolin

All Faculty Scholarship

On June 28, 2004, the United States Supreme Court released its much awaited decisions in the cases posing a challenge to the Executive's self-professed authority to detain and indefinitely hold individuals designated as "enemy combatants." The cases arose from the "war on terrorism" that was launched after the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001. When each decision is looked at individually, the result seems to make sense and, given the outcome (affording detainees rights of judicial review), feels good. Yet when these decisions are looked at collectively, it is hard to believe that they were issued by …

Human Rights And National Security: The Strategic Correlation, William W. Burke-White

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.