Law Commons^™

Incentivizing And Protecting Informants Prior To Mass Atrocities Such As Genocide: An Alternative To Post Hoc Courts And Tribunals, Eric Talbot Jensen

Faculty Scholarship

International institutions are almost exclusively reactive to violations of international law. There are very few systemic methods of proactively trying to prevent egregious violations such as genocide; rather, international law seems to take punishing violators as its sole approach. In modern times, most of the punishment and post-event enforcement has come through international courts and tribunals. These courts and tribunals are astoundingly expensive and notoriously inefficient. More importantly, the threat of prosecution does not appear to act as an effective deterrent in preventing criminal acts. This is unacceptable. With hundreds of thousands of lives at stake, the international community must …

The Case For Palestine: An International Law Perspective, Susan M. Akram

Faculty Scholarship

A Book Review for: The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective by John Quigley

Taken from review:

John Quigley aptly calls it “the longest-standing conflict in the history of the United Nations”—the apparently intractable Middle East conflict that continues to foster violence and instability, not only in the region, but around the world. But Quigley’s revised and updated The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective, in clear language and persuasive legal argument, draws the conclusion that it is not unsolvable. Far from an intractable problem, Quigley argues, solving the Israel-Palestine conflict in a way that leads to a …

The Role Of Military Tribunals Under The Law Of War, Robinson O. Everett

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Dunlap’S Very Subjective Reading List For Air Force Judge Advocates, Charles J. Dunlap Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Combatant Status Review Tribunals: Flawed Answers To The Wrong Question, Joseph Blocher

Faculty Scholarship

This Comment argues that the Combatant Status Review Tribunals were not competent to deny Prisoner of War status because they were charged only with identifying enemy combatants, a broad category that by its own terms includes many POWs. Given the substantial overlap between the definitions of "enemy combatant" and "POW," a CSRT's affirmative enemy combatant determination actually supports a detainee's POW status. Thus, even after their enemy combatant status has been adjudicated by the CSRTs, Guantánamo detainees should still be treated as presumptive POWs.

Voices From The Stars? America's Generals And Public Debates, Charles J. Dunlap Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Neo-Strategicon: Modernized Principles Of War For The 21st Century, Charles J. Dunlap Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Legal Issues In Coalition Warfare: A U.S. Perspective, Charles J. Dunlap Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Waging War Against Terror: An Essay For Sandy Levinson, Philip Chase Bobbitt

Faculty Scholarship

Wars are acts of State, and therefore there has never been a "war on terror." Of course states have fought terrorism, in many guises, for centuries. But a war on terror had to await the development of states – including virtual states like al Qaeda's global ummah – whose constitutional order was not confined to a particular territory or national group and for whom terror could therefore be a permanent state of international affairs, either sought in order to prevent persons within a state's control from resisting oppression by accessing global, empowering resources and networks, or suffered because other states …