Law Commons^™

Law School News: Sanctions On Russia: Imperfect But Necessary 03-02-2022, Gregory W. Bowman

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Newsroom: Interrogation Expert Warns Against Use Of Torture 2-2-2018, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Justice At War: Military Tribunals And Article Iii, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Unsatisfying Wars: Degrees Of Risk And The Jus Ex Bello, Gabriella Blum, David Luban

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Self-defensive war uses violence to transfer risks from one’s own people to others. We argue that central questions in just war theory may fruitfully be analyzed as issues about the morality of risk transfer. That includes the jus ex bello question of when states are required to accept a ceasefire in an otherwise-just war. In particular, a “war on terror” that ups the risks to outsiders cannot continue until the risk of terrorism has been reduced to zero or near zero. Some degree of security risk is inevitable when coexisting with others in the international community, just as citizens within …

Exceptional Engagement: Protocol I And A World United Against Terrorism, Michael A. Newton

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This article challenges the prevailing view that U.S. "exceptionalism" provides the strongest narrative for the U.S. rejection of Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. The United States chose not to adopt the Protocol in the face of intensive international criticism because of its policy conclusions that the text contained overly expansive provisions resulting from politicized pressure to accord protection to terrorists who elected to conduct hostile military operations outside the established legal framework. The United States concluded that the commingling of the regime criminalizing terrorist acts with the jus in bello rules of humanitarian law would be untenable …

The War On Terrorism And The End Of Human Rights, David Luban

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In the immediate aftermath of September 11, President Bush stated that the perpetrators of the deed would be brought to justice. Soon afterwards, the President announced that the United States would engage in a war on terrorism. The first of these statements adopts the familiar language of criminal law and criminal justice. It treats the September 11 attacks as horrific crimes—mass murders—and the government’s mission as apprehending and punishing the surviving planners and conspirators for their roles in the crimes. The War on Terrorism is a different proposition, however, and a different model of governmental action—not law but war. Most …

Use Of Force Against Terrorist Bases: Introduction, Malvina Halberstam

Articles

No abstract provided.

Terrorism, Law, And Our Constitutional Order, Christopher L. Blakesley

Scholarly Works

We have all suffered moments of vicarious terror over the past few years as we watched news accounts of terrorist incidents, such as the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. There, some institution, government, or group used innocent children, women, and men as fodder for their “war.” Some have claimed that the pusillanimous carnage was in retaliation for the slaughter of equivalent innocents aboard the Iranian Air Bus, similarly destroyed by American forces during the summer of 1988. Others suggested that it was committed by those interested in thwarting prospects of peace in the Middle East.

Combatting …

Terrorism, Malvina Halberstam

Articles

No abstract provided.