Law Commons^™

Untangling Belligerency From Neutrality In The Conflict With Al-Qaeda, Rebecca Ingber

Faculty Scholarship

The legal architecture for the conflict with al-Qaeda and the Taliban has been the subject of extensive scrutiny through two presidential administrations, a decade of litigation, and multiple acts of Congress. All three branches of the federal government have to date defined the framework as one of armed conflict, and have looked to the laws of war as support for expansive authorities concerning the use of force, including detention. Yet the laws of war do not merely contemplate broad state authority; they also provide critical and non-derogable constraints on that authority. Nevertheless considerable debate rages on with respect to whether …

Measure Twice, Shoot Once: Higher Care For Cia-Targeted Killing, Afsheen John Radsan, Richard Murphy

Faculty Scholarship

For almost a decade, the United States has deployed unmanned aerial vehicles, or "drones," to kill targeted members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) drone strikes in Pakistan have, in particular, stirred strong debates over the legality of such actions. Some commentators insist that these strikes are legal under international humanitarian law (IHL) or as a matter of self-defense. Others insist that the United States' targeted killing amounts to murder.

It is critical for the law to determine how to control killer drones and the future of warfare. As technology evolves, drones will develop sharper senses …