Law Commons^™

A Military Justice Solution In Search Of A Problem: A Response To Vladeck, Geoffrey S. Corn, Chris Jenks

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

In “Military Courts and Article III,” law professor Steve Vladeck proposes a wholesale replacement of the foundation upon which court-martial jurisdiction has stood since the inception of the United States. In an effort to provide a unifying theory grounded in international law, Professor Vladeck fails to properly distinguish the jurisdiction established by Congress to regulate the armed forces from the jurisdiction established to punish violations of the laws of war. This conflation yields confusion about military jurisdiction which ripples throughout the theory. Our response, which centers on courts-martial, argues that Professor Vladeck has offered a solution in search of a …

Agency Of Risk: The Competing Balance Between Protecting Military Forces And The Civilian Population During Counterinsurgency Operations In Afghanistan, Chris Jenks

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Using both the International Security Assistance Force’s tactical directive on use of force in Afghanistan and doctrinal concepts from the US military’s counterinsurgency manual, this chapter explores the allocation of risk between the military force and Afghan civilian population. The chapter first reviews civilian and military casualty figures and then uses those numbers as a touchstone against which to consider each group’s perception of the risk they face.

Introductory Note To The European Court Of Human Rights (Gc): Şahin V. Turkey, Chris Jenks

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

This note introduces a Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights decision which considered whether disparate outcomes from different court systems of the same state evaluating the same set of facts constituted a violation of the European Convention’s right to a fair hearing. While discussion of micro level Turkish procedural issues is required, the Şahin case also provides broader, macro lessons on the legitimacy of military court decisions.

Double Jeopardy And Multiple Sovereigns: A Jurisdictional Theory, Anthony J. Colangelo

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

This Article offers a coherent way of thinking about double jeopardy rules among sovereigns. Its theory has strong explanatory power for current double jeopardy law and practice in both U.S. federal and international legal systems, recommends adjustments to double jeopardy doctrine in both systems, and sharpens normative assessment of that doctrine.

The Article develops a jurisdictional theory of double jeopardy under which sovereignty signifies independent jurisdiction to make and apply law. Using this theory, the Article recasts the history of the U.S. Supreme Court's dual sovereignty doctrine entirely in terms of jurisdiction, penetrating the opacity of the term sovereign as …

Unanimously Wrong, Dale Carpenter

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

The Supreme Court was unanimously wrong in Rumsfeld v. FAIR. Though rare, it's not the first time the Court has been unanimously wrong. Its most notorious such decisions have come, like FAIR, in cases where the Court conspicuously failed even to appreciate the importance of the constitutional freedoms under attack from legislative majorities. In these cases, the Court's very rhetoric exposed its myopic vision in ways that now seem embarrassing. Does FAIR, so obviously correct to so many people right now, await the same ignominy decades away? FAIR was wrong in tone, a dismissive vox populi, adopted by a Court …