Law Commons^™

Exporting U.S. Anti-Terrorism Legislation And Policies To The International Law Arena, A Comparative Study: The Effect On Other Countries' Legal Systems, Olga Kallergi

Cornell Law School Inter-University Graduate Student Conference Papers

The terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York on 9/11 set in motion a new era all over the world: an era of a world uniting against a common enemy, but also an era of insecurity and fear. Laws have been changed worldwide, nations have united against a common threat, legal theories and beliefs of centuries have been questioned, and civil liberties have been replaced by a need for national safety. Has this worldwide effort worked? Is our world a better place now that we are all fighting the same enemy? Did we learn from our past …

Report Of The Independent Expert On The Protection Of Human Rights And Fundamental Freedoms While Countering Terrorism, Robert K. Goldman

Reports

The Commission on Human Rights, in resolution 2004/87, decided to designate, from within existing resources, for a period of one year, an independent expert to assist the High Commissioner for Human Rights in the fulfillment of the mandate described in the resolution and, “taking fully into account the study requested in General Assembly resolution 58/187, as well as the discussions in the Assembly and the views of States thereon, to submit a report, through the High Commissioner, to the Commission at its sixty-first session on ways and means of strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms …

Terrorism: The Politics Of Prosecution, Madeline Morris

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Protecting Rights In The Age Of Terrorism: Challenges And Opportunities, Rosa Brooks

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Depending on whom you speak to these days (and the mood in which you find them), international law is either practically moribund, or it's more vibrant and important than it has been for years. To take the good news story first, international law issues have been at the forefront of public discourse over the past few years. Pick your issue: the U.N. Charter and the international law on the use of force? The Convention Against Torture? The Geneva Conventions? You'll find it on the front page these days. Journalists are phoning international law professors for background briefings, and students are …

The Politics Of The Geneva Conventions: Avoiding Formalist Traps, Rosa Brooks

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Geneva Conventions were drafted in 1949, in another world. The world of the Geneva Conventions' "framers" is still familiar to all of us, though increasingly it is familiar from movies and books rather from the evening news or, still less, our own lived experience. The world in which the Conventions were drafted was a world of states: powerful states, weak states, predatory states, law-abiding states, but states all the same. Soldiers wore uniforms designed by their states, carried weapons issued by their states, obeyed orders given by their commanders, and fought against the armies of other states.

Well--most of …

Re-Membering Law In The Internationalizing World, Vivian Grosswald Curran

Articles

This article examines some of the challenges to understanding new, non-national legal configurations as contexts of origin color understandings and evaluations of legal standards allegedly shared across legal communities. It examines a case on assisted suicide, Pretty v. U.K., decided by the European Court of Human Rights. The case illustrates mechanisms of legal integration in the European court, followed by a process of dis-integration that occurred when the decision was reported to the French legal community. The French rendition reflected a legal community's inability to process common law information through civil law cognitive grids. The article addresses both the capacity …

Enhancing The Status Of Non-State Actors Through A Global War On Terror?, Mary Ellen O'Connell

Journal Articles

Soon after September 11, President Bush declared a global war on terrorism and members of terrorist groups "combatants." These declarations are not only generally inconsistent with international law; they also reverse the trend regarding the legal status of international non-state actors. For decades, law-abiding non-state actors, such as international humanitarian aid organizations, enjoyed ever-expanding rights on the international plane. Professor Schachter observed how this trend came at the expense of the nation-state. He also predicted, however, that the nation-state would not fade away any time soon. And, by the late Twentieth Century, the trend toward enhanced status was noticeably slowing. …

When Is A War Not A War? The Myth Of The Global War On Terror, Mary Ellen O'Connell

Journal Articles

It is essential to correctly classify situations in the world as ones of war or peace: human lives depend on the distinction, but so do liberty, property, and the integrity of the natural environment. President Bush's war on terror finds war where suspected members of al Qaeda are found. By contrast, war under international law exists where hostilities are on-going. To the extent there is ambiguity, the United States should err on the side of pursuing terrorists within the peacetime criminal law enforcement paradigm, not a wartime one. Not only does the criminal law better protect important human rights and …

Affirming The Ban On Harsh Interrogation, Mary Ellen O'Connell

Journal Articles

Beginning in 2002, lawyers for the Bush Administration began producing the now infamous legal memoranda on the subject of interrogation. The memoranda advise interrogators that they can torture people without fear of prosecution in connection with the so-called global war on terror. Much has been and will be written about the expedient and erroneous legal analysis of the memos. One issue at risk of being overlooked, however, because the memos emphasize torture, is that the United States must respect limits far short of torture in the conduct of interrogations. The United States may not use any form of coercion against …