Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Law
U.S. Judicial Independence: Victim In The “War On Terror”, Wayne Mccormack
U.S. Judicial Independence: Victim In The “War On Terror”, Wayne Mccormack
Wayne McCormack
One of the principal victims in the U.S. so-called "war on terror" has been the independence of the U.S. Judiciary. Time and again, challenges to assertedly illegal conduct on the part of government officials have been turned aside without addressing the merits, either because of overt deference to the Government or because of special doctrines such as state secrets and standing requirements. This paper catalogs the principal cases first by the nature of the government action challenged and then by the special doctrines invoked. The U.S. judiciary has virtually relinquished its valuable role of judicial review. In the face of …
Kiobel, Extraterritoriality, And The "Global War On Terrorism", Craig Martin
Kiobel, Extraterritoriality, And The "Global War On Terrorism", Craig Martin
Craig Martin
For the purpose of exploring the issues of extraterritoriality raised in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., this project sought to examine how the federal courts have considered extraterritoriality in cases arising in the so-called “global war on terror” (GWOT). The inquiry leads to some new and arguably important observations about extraterritoriality in the GWOT policies and related jurisprudence. The plaintiffs in Kiobel claimed, under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), that the defendant corporations were liable for complicity in Nigeria’s conduct of indefinite detention, torture, and extrajudicial killing. The U.S. Supreme Court departed from the issue of corporate liability under …
Reclassifying "Terrorists" As Victims: Integrating Terrorism Analysis Into The Particular Social Group Framework Of Asylum, Emily Naser-Hall
Reclassifying "Terrorists" As Victims: Integrating Terrorism Analysis Into The Particular Social Group Framework Of Asylum, Emily Naser-Hall
Emily Naser-Hall
After the September 11th terrorist attacks at the hands of al-Qaeda operatives who slipped through the cracks of the US immigration system, immigration and asylum law became increasingly focused on ensuring that potential terrorists are not allowed into the United States. The USA PATRIOT Act and its subsequent legislation created what has become an unyielding bar to admission for any individual who is a member of a terrorist organization or who has committed terrorist activities. While the terrorism bar developed in response to real or perceived threats to US national security and has recently regained public light with the trial …
Reclassifying "Terrorists" As Victims: Integrating Terrorism Analysis Into The Particular Social Group Framework Of Asylum, Emily Naser-Hall
Reclassifying "Terrorists" As Victims: Integrating Terrorism Analysis Into The Particular Social Group Framework Of Asylum, Emily Naser-Hall
Emily Naser-Hall
No abstract provided.
Analyzing The Legitimacy Of The Liberation Tigers Of Tamil Eelam’S Rebellion Against The Sri Lankan State, Paul R. Rickert
Analyzing The Legitimacy Of The Liberation Tigers Of Tamil Eelam’S Rebellion Against The Sri Lankan State, Paul R. Rickert
Paul R Rickert
No abstract provided.
Is Torture Justified In Terrorism Cases?: Comparing U.S. And European Views, Stephen P. Hoffman
Is Torture Justified In Terrorism Cases?: Comparing U.S. And European Views, Stephen P. Hoffman
Stephen P. Hoffman
This essay discusses issues of torture and some of the philosophical underpinnings. First, I define torture as it is used in international and human rights law. Then, I discuss three primary theories of torture: deontology, consequentialism, and threshold deontology. After setting this groundwork, I introduce particular issues in terrorism cases such as the “ticking bomb” scenario, which is often used to argue that torture may be appropriate and possibly required when done to save many lives. This invariably must include a discussion of the necessity doctrine, the legal doctrine allowing an individual to take extraordinary — even illegal — measures …
Defending Weak States Against The "Unwilling Or Unable" Doctrine Of Self-Defense, Dawood I. Ahmed
Defending Weak States Against The "Unwilling Or Unable" Doctrine Of Self-Defense, Dawood I. Ahmed
Dawood Ahmed
Victim states occasionally use force to target non-state actors that have allegedly attacked the victim state, on the pretext that the host state is “unwilling or unable” (“ineffective”) to act. The international law permissibility of such force is unclear: state responsibility principles do not hold ineffective states liable, the universe of state practice is small and the International Court of Justice and some scholars deny the legality of such force while others disagree. This article is the first dedicated to a critical analysis of the “unwilling or unable” doctrine from both, a law and policy perspective. It argues that, although …