Law Commons^™

Detention Of Australia’S Asylum Seekers In Nauru: Is Deprivation Of Liberty By Any Other Name Just As Unlawful?, Azadeh Dastyari

Azadeh Dastyari

This article will examine the detention of Australia’s asylum seekers in Nauru. In particular, this article will assess the conformity of the 2013 MOU between Australia and Nauru with the protections against unlawful deprivation of liberty under the Constitution of Nauru and the protections against arbitrary detention afforded to asylum seekers under international law.

The article will begin by discussing the transfer of asylum seekers by Australia to Nauru and the legality of this arrangement under Australian municipal law. The article will then discuss the arrangements for asylum seekers once they are in Nauru. It will demonstrate that the confinement …

Authorization Versus Regulation Of Detention In Non-International Armed Conflicts, Ryan Goodman

International Law Studies

What does the law of armed conflict say about detention in non-international armed conflict? Is the law “utterly silent,” as some contend, with respect to the grounds for detention—regulating who may be confined and for what status or behavior? And do the in bello rules provide a source of affirmative authority that empowers belligerents to engage in detention? How those questions are resolved and, in particular, the basis for reaching the conclusions may have unintended consequences for the regulation of warfare. This article contends that the laws of war regulate the grounds for detention but do not authorize detention in …

The Ndaa, Aumf, And Citizens Detained Away From The Theater Of War: Sounding A Clarion Call For A Clear Statement Rule, Diana Cho

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

In the armed conflict resulting from the September 11 attacks, the executive authority to order the indefinite detention of citizens captured away from the theater of war is an issue of foreign and domestic significance. The relevant law of armed conflict provisions relevant to conflicts that are international or non-international in nature, however, do not fully address this issue. Congress also intentionally left the question of administrative orders of citizen detainment unresolved in a controversial provision of the 2012 version of the annually-enacted National Defense Authorization Act. While plaintiffs in Hedges v. Obama sought to challenge the enforceability of NDAA’s …

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 …

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

University of Massachusetts Law Review

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 human rights norms and international …

Detention Status Review Process In Transnational Armed Conflict: Al Maquleh V. Gates, And The Parwan Detention Facility, Jody M. Prescott

University of Massachusetts Law Review

This article will first set out a brief history and description of the airfield at Bagram and the detention facilities there. Second, it will explore the standards under international law and the implement ation of national regulations by which the detention status of individuals detained by U.S. military forces is determined, when such individuals may be released from detention, and the significance of the evolving concept of transnational armed conflict to these determinations. Third, it will review the U.S. Supreme Court‘s decision in Boumediene, explore the Court‘s analysis in reaching its decision, and identify what the Court found to be …

Is There A Way Out Of The Non-International Armed Conflict Detention Dilemma?, Gabor Rona

International Law Studies

Detention in non-international armed conflicts (NIACs, or wars fought between States and non-State armed groups) is a time-honored military and humanitarian necessity. And yet, the principles of sovereignty, the texts of the law of armed conflict and international human rights law and the historical record leave little doubt: international law recognizes no inherent detention power in such wars. As long as NIACs were purely internal civil wars, there was little basis to question the exclusive role of domestic law in regulating detention of the enemy. With the advent of transnational NIACs, such as the war in Afghanistan involving multi-national forces …

Targeting And Detention In Non-International Armed Conflict: Serdar Mohammed And The Limits Of Human Rights Convergence, Aurel Sari, Sean Aughey

International Law Studies

In recent years, the United Kingdom has seen a steady flow of legal challenges arising out of its involvement in the armed conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Among these, the case of Serdar Mohammed, decided by the English High Court in May 2014, is of particular interest because of its wider implications. In essence, the High Court’s judgment in Mohammed questions the existence of a legal basis under the law of armed conflict for the conduct of status-based operations in non-international armed conflicts. This article demonstrates that the restrictive approach adopted by the High Court in Mohammed is mistaken as …

"I Still Live In Guantanamo!" Human Rights Abuses Continue After Detainees Leave Guantanamo, Peter Honigsberg

Peter J Honigsberg

In November 2014, the U.S. government transferred Yemeni national Hussein Al-marfadi, from the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba detention center to the nation of Slovakia. He had never been charged with a crime, and had been cleared for release nearly five years before his transfer to Slovakia. Three months later, in February 2015, the Witness to Guantanamo project (W2G) interviewed Al-marfadi in Zvolen, a town in central Slovakia. Although physically and psychologically scarred from his 12 years of detention, Al-marfadi was an engaging, even-tempered and thoughtful man.

However, when W2G asked Al-marfadi about his life today, his composure and even-tempered tone transformed …