Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Beyond Hague Viii: Other Legal Limits On Naval Mine Warfare, David Letts
Beyond Hague Viii: Other Legal Limits On Naval Mine Warfare, David Letts
International Law Studies
Legal texts and scholarly articles that deal with the topic of naval mine warfare typically do so by reference to Hague Convention VIII of 1907 and customary international law. Little comment, if any, is usually made in relation to the variety of other legal regimes that might impact upon the use of naval mines in armed conflict. This article seeks to redress that imbalance by examining, with a focus on the jus in bello, a range of legal considerations arising from more contemporary sources that affect the use of naval mines in international armed conflict.
Identifying The Enemy In Counterterrorism Operations: A Comparison Of The Bush And Obama Administrations, Boaz Ganor
Identifying The Enemy In Counterterrorism Operations: A Comparison Of The Bush And Obama Administrations, Boaz Ganor
International Law Studies
Identifying the enemy plays a crucial role in providing the government with the authority needed to fight terrorism—from the authority to investigate threats to the authority to detain and use lethal force. The two administrations significantly differ in their understanding of the enemy, both at the organizational and individual levels. They also differ in their understanding of the boundaries of the battlefield. Ultimately, contrasting the policies adopted by the Bush and Obama administrations reveals that the early identification of the enemy by decision makers shaped the nature and scope of each administration’s counterterrorism strategies.
The United States’ Position On The Extraterritorial Application Of Human Rights Obligations: Now Is The Time For Change, Beth Van Schaack
The United States’ Position On The Extraterritorial Application Of Human Rights Obligations: Now Is The Time For Change, Beth Van Schaack
International Law Studies
This article contends that in the upcoming Human Rights Committee proceedings, the U.S. should abandon the categorical argument that its human rights obligations do not apply extraterritorially in favor of a more nuanced approach that reflects the majority position reached by the range of human rights treaty bodies and courts as well as the legal framework applicable to our coalition partners and other allies. The U.S. failure to acknowledge limited, well-established, and principled exceptions to a strictly territorial application of its human rights obligations ultimately undermines the legitimacy of other, more efficacious, arguments at its disposal—such as its position on …