Law Commons^™

A Human Rights Perspective To Global Battlefield Detention: Time To Reconsider Indefinite Detention, Yuval Shany

International Law Studies

This article discusses one principal challenge to detention without trial of suspected international terrorists—the international human rights law (IHRL) norm requiring the introduction of an upper limit on the duration of security detention in order to render it not indefinite in length. Part One of this article describes the “hardline” position on security detention, adopted by the United States in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks (followed, with certain variations, by other countries, including the United Kingdom and the State of Israel), according to which international terrorism suspects can be deprived of their liberty without trial for the …

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 …

Legal Affairs: Dreyfus, Guantánamo, And The Foundation Of The Rule Of Law, David Cole

Touro Law Review

Analogous to the Dreyfus affair, America's reaction to the events of September 11, 2001, subverted the rule of law to impose penalties on those it viewed as a threat. There are lessons to be learned from both the Dreyfus affair and America's reaction to September 11, 2001.

Introduction: Persecution Through Prosecution: Revisiting Touro Law Center’S Conference In Paris On The Dreyfus Affair And The Leo Frank Trial, Rodger D. Citron

Touro Law Review

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.

Human Rights Litigation And The National Interest: Kiobel'S Application Of The Presumption Against Extraterritoriality To The Alien Tort Statute, Jonathan Hafetz

Maryland Journal of International Law

No abstract provided.

Carlos Figueroa On State Power And Democracy: Before And During The Presidency Of George W. Bush. By Andrew Kolin. New York, Ny: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. 251pp., Carlos Figueroa

Human Rights & Human Welfare

A review of:

State Power and Democracy: Before and During the Presidency of George W. Bush. By Andrew Kolin. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. 251pp.

The International Legal Framework For Stability Operations: When May International Forces Attack Or Detain Someone In Afghanistan?, Marco Sassoli

International Law Studies

No abstract provided.

Looking Forward, Backward, Or Just Away?, Chandra Lekha Sriram

Human Rights & Human Welfare

The declassification and leaking of the so-called “torture memos” only supplements much which was already publicly well-known, but has offered a fresh opportunity to frankly debate American values, in particular its commitment to the rule of law, its own constitution, and international human rights and humanitarian law obligations to which it has committed itself, and which the Supreme Court has confirmed are part of domestic law. It is a shame, therefore, that the debate has been so stunted, diverted by the red herring of Dick Cheney’s rantings, and the apparent willingness of a segment of the population to accept, first, …

Let Us Not Become The Evil We Deplore, Rebecca Otis

Human Rights & Human Welfare

On 14 September 2001, Representative Barbara Lee (CA-D) voted against the House bill that granted President Bush the authority to use force in response to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. As the sole person to vote against the bill (by a margin of 420-1), Lee was roundly vilified as a “traitor,” a “coward, and even a “communist.” Later that day, as the only voice of dissent on the House floor, Lee delivered a speech to justify her position. Famously, she said to the elected representatives of our country, “As we act, let us not become …

Response To Mark Danner’S “The Red Cross’ Torture Report: What It Means”, Charli Carpenter

Human Rights & Human Welfare

Danner’s NY Review of Books treatise on torture calls our attention to many significant issues, but in his key argument he is critically wrong.

June Roundtable: Introduction

Human Rights & Human Welfare

An annotation of:

“The Red Cross Torture Report: What It Means.” by Mark Danner. The New York Review of Books. April 30, 2009.

Righting Past, Present And Future Wrongs, Rhona Smith

Human Rights & Human Welfare

Three legal issues are raised by the centerpiece of this month’s Roundtable: Does the legal definition of torture include “enhanced interrogation techniques”? What are the legal responsibilities of a State when torture is committed by its agents? and What should the State do now to prevent future violations of human rights? In other words, one must characterize the actions of the past, ameliorate the damage in the present, and prevent a recurrence in the future.

Torture—And Our Broader Understanding Of Human Rights, Mark Gibney

Human Rights & Human Welfare

Like most other human rights scholars, I am appalled at the idea that those people in the Bush White House who designed the administration’s policy on torture (but calling it something else) will in all likelihood go unpunished. In my view, the law is clear on this matter: those who directed and/or carried out torture must be held accountable for their actions. However, rather than focusing on the issue of accountability, I will use the issue of torture to make a broader point about how we have come to conceptualize the extent and scope of a state’s human rights obligations.

The Moral High Ground In An Age Of Vulnerability, Tyler Moselle

Human Rights & Human Welfare

Mark Danner’s New York Review of Books piece on torture in conjunction with John Nichols’ comment on the Bush administration, outline moral, legal and political problems related to the global war on terrorism and the ascendancy of the American imperial presidency. Most people seem to be repulsed by the idea of torture but are not morally committed enough or fully dedicated to prevent it from being employed to defend their way of life. Torture is a policy decision predicated on fear, self-defense, and vulnerability in an age of globalized insurgency: one way to respond is to take the moral high …

Appealing To The Realist Nature Of The Problem: An Attempt To Find Common Ground, Eric K. Leonard

Human Rights & Human Welfare

Whenever I teach my undergraduate course on human rights, I inevitably have one student who argues that state sovereignty trumps all and that states should act in their “national interest” in regards to issues where human rights and sovereignty clash. They usually continue the argument by stipulating that “human rights” are not defensible unless they are universally accepted, meaning contained in a universally ratified document (and they use the term “universal” literally), because all authority resides in the state. Thus, it is always an interesting discussion when we turn to the issue of migration, and more specifically, refugees.

Social Contract In A Borderless World, Daniel J. Graeber

Human Rights & Human Welfare

Addressing the American Political Science Association in 2000, the international relations theorist Robert Keohane of Princeton University noted that effective governance in a globalized world depends more on interstate cooperation and transnational networks than any type of world body. Keohane made the claim that the people and players in a globalized world stand to gain from the system through cooperation across borders and boundaries. Nevertheless, Keohane also observed that the actors may exploit interdependence in that system by transferring blame to others and that, although institutions may be essential, they can also be dangerous. So it is when confronting the …

Reconstructing Sovereignty: From Control To Responsibility, Eric K. Leonard

Human Rights & Human Welfare

As I stood with a standing-room only crowd last fall at a United Nations University of New York (UNU-ONY) event entitled, "Prevention of Mass Atrocities: From Mandate to Realization," I began to wonder how far the responsibility to protect (R2P) could be stretched. As defined by the UNU-ONY organizers, the purpose of the event was " to explore the work of mass atrocity prevention across the UN system, with a focus on the role of the new Office of the Special Representative for the Prevention of Genocide and Mass Atrocities (SRPGMA)." As I currently look at the international community's response …

July Roundtable: Introduction

Human Rights & Human Welfare

An annotation of:

"Armed and Humanitarian" by Bruce Falconer. Mother Jones. May 19, 2008.

Mission Creep: De-Militarizing Humanitarian Protection, Sonia Cardenas

Human Rights & Human Welfare

Over a decade ago, the U.S. military was warning liberal internationalists about the dangers of "mission creep." Today it is doing the opposite, incorporating relief and development work into its operations. In the devastating aftermath of Cyclone Nargis in Burma , the U.S. military's newfound mission may seem compelling. Unfortunately, expanding the military's role into humanitarian work reflects a flawed logic that should be resisted. There are more promising ways to protect victims of humanitarian disaster.

When Steel And Guns Meets Bread And Butter, Daniel J. Graeber

Human Rights & Human Welfare

Speaking before the 191-member United Nations in 2005, then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair said that "For the first time . we are agreed that states do not have the right to do what they will within their own borders but that we in the name of humanity have a common duty to protect people where their own governments will not." This notion, that of responsible sovereignty , says that nation states forfeit the right to uninterrupted internal freedoms when they no longer uphold the responsibilities associated with sovereignty.

Human Rights And The War On Terror Second Edition: Introduction, Jack Donnelly

Human Rights & Human Welfare

“9/11 changed everything.” Not really. In fact, there has been far more continuity than change over the past six years in both international and domestic politics. Nonetheless, human rights often have been harmed—although not by terrorism but by “the war on terror.”

Title Page

Human Rights & Human Welfare

Title page for the 2007 supplement to the Human Rights and the War on Terror topical research digest.

United States Foreign Policy: Liberty And Security?, Jessi Schimmel

Human Rights & Human Welfare

Prior to September 11, 2001, the United States had the reputation of being a leader in the field of human rights. As information of torture and abuse in Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay, and secret CIA detention centers has surfaced, however, the image of America has changed from human rights champion to that of violator. In large part, the international community of scholars and activists has come to deride the foreign policy of the United States as misguided and out of balance with the threats the country faces. However, there are also plenty of outspoken defenders who believe that the tactics …

Sarah Bania-Dobyns On New Terror, New Wars By Paul Gilbert. Washington, Dc: Georgetown University Press, 2003. 176pp., Sarah Bania-Dobyns

Human Rights & Human Welfare

A review of:

New Terror, New Wars by Paul Gilbert. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2003. 176pp.

The Usa Patriot Act, Toni Panetta

Human Rights & Human Welfare

The events of September 11, 2001 serve as the origin of the United States’ War on Terror as popularized by the Bush administration. Previously, American strategies to combat terrorism focused on attacks against its interests abroad, and support for other governments’ efforts to curb terrorist acts within their own boundaries. However, September 11 revealed vulnerability to violence by non-state actors within U.S. borders. In response, the United States reshaped its anti-terrorist strategies to prevent future attacks by targeting terrorists, foreign and domestic, known and potential.