Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 5 of 5

Full-Text Articles in Law

Climate Change And The Right To Food: A Comprehensive Study, Human Rights Institute Jan 2009

Climate Change And The Right To Food: A Comprehensive Study, Human Rights Institute

Human Rights Institute

Climate change and the policies instituted to combat it are affecting the realiza- tion of the right to food in myriad, often unnoticed ways. This report highlights how – despite the common objective to preserve human welfare for present and future generations – the climate change regime and the human rights regime addressing the right to food have failed to coordinate their agendas and to collab- orate to each other’s mutual benefit. The current climate change regime fails to accurately address the human harms resulting from climate change itself, and is not operating with the necessary safeguards and preventive measures …


Guantánamo, Habeas Corpus, And Standards Of Proof: Viewing The Law Through Multiple Lenses, Matthew C. Waxman Jan 2009

Guantánamo, Habeas Corpus, And Standards Of Proof: Viewing The Law Through Multiple Lenses, Matthew C. Waxman

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court held in Boumediene v. Bush that Guantánamo detainees have a constitutional right to habeas corpus review of their detention, but it left to district courts in the first instance responsibility for working through the appropriate standard of proof and related evidentiary principles imposed on the government to justify continued detention. This article argues that embedded in seemingly straightforward judicial standard-setting with respect to proof and evidence are significant policy questions about competing risks and their distribution. How one approaches these questions depends on the lens through which one views the problem: through that of a courtroom concerned …


United States Detention Operations In Afghanistan And The Law Of Armed Conflict, Matthew C. Waxman Jan 2009

United States Detention Operations In Afghanistan And The Law Of Armed Conflict, Matthew C. Waxman

Faculty Scholarship

Looking back on US and coalition detention operations in Afghanistan to date, three key issues stand out: one substantive, one procedural and one policy. The substantive matter – what are the minimum baseline treatment standards required as a matter of international law? – has clarified significantly during the course of operations there, largely as a result of the US Supreme Court’s holding in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The procedural matter – what adjudicative processes does international law require for determining who may be detained? – eludes consensus and has become more controversial the longer the Afghan conflict continues. And the …


Beyond Protection, Philip A. Hamburger Jan 2009

Beyond Protection, Philip A. Hamburger

Faculty Scholarship

Do foreign terrorists have rights under American law? And can they be prosecuted under such law? These questions may seem novel and singularly dificult. In fact, the central legal questions raised by foreign terrorism have long been familiar and have long had answers in the principle of protection.

This Article explains the principle of protection and its implications for terrorism. Under the principle of protection, as understood in early American law, allegiance and protection were reciprocal. As a result, a person without allegiance was without protection, including the protection of the law. Not owing allegiance, such a person had no …


Secondary Human Rights Law, Monica Hakimi Jan 2009

Secondary Human Rights Law, Monica Hakimi

Faculty Scholarship

In recent years, the United States has appeared before four different treaty bodies to defend its human rights record. The process is part of the human rights enforcement structure: each of the major universal treaties has an expert body that reviews and comments on compliance reports that states must periodically submit. What's striking about the treaty bodies' dialogues with the United States is not that they criticized it or disagreed with it on the content of certain substantive rules. (That was all expected.) It's the extent to which the two sides talked past each other. Each presumed a different set …