Military, War, and Peace Commons^™

The Lexington Principles On The Rights Of Detainees: A Transnational Legal Process Approach To Due Process, David Alan Jordan, Frederic L. Kirgis, R. Brooke Lewis, Thomas Greenwood, Bennett L. Ross, Kathryn M. Zunich

Scholarly Articles

In Boumediene v. Bush, decided June 12, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court extended the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus to noncitizens detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Courts will now be called upon to assess the propriety of American detainee treatment practices against unclear constitutional standards. The strength and contours of the due process protections the U.S. Constitution will afford these detainees is still an unsettled question. The Lexington Principles are designed to help guide the development of American due process standards as they move outside our borders. These Principles are also intended to serve as a model for those …

Evidence Gained From Torture: Wishful Thinking, Checkability, And Extreme Circumstances, James Franklin

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law

The article argues that while torture is morally abhorrent, its effectiveness in extracting reliable information should be evaluated separately from ethical considerations. It contends that torture can yield reliable information when the extracted details can be independently verified, challenging the common assumption that torture universally leads to false confessions. The analysis emphasizes the importance of understanding the factual reliability of torture-derived evidence before addressing its legal admissibility.

The Long War, The Federal Courts, And The Necessity/Legality Paradox, Stephen I. Vladeck

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Boumediene And Lawfare, Tung Yin

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Detention Of Suspected Terrorists In Northern Ireland And Great Britain, Brice Dickson

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Terrorist Detention: Directions For Reform, Benjamin J. Priester

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Applying Geneva Convention Principles To Guantánamo Bay, Kyndra Rotunda

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Extraordinary Rendition: A Wrong Without A Right, Robert Johnson

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Future Of Detainees In The Global War On Terror: A U.S. Policy Perspective, Saxby Chamblis

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Combatants And The Combat Zone, Mary Ellen O'Connell

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Institutional Legitimacy And Counterterrorism Trials, Gregory S. Mcneal

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Pollard Languishes, Kenneth Lasson

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Protecting Human Rights In Conflict, Clair Apodaca

Human Rights & Human Welfare

The Just War Theory of Jus in Bello is the international community’s attempt to ensure respect for human rights and human welfare during armed conflicts. The principle of proportionality and the obligation to distinguish between combatants and civilians in attacks are two related notions that are fundamental to the protection of human rights during conflict. The principle of proportionality limits the amount of violence and destruction that is morally permissible. By contrast, the principle of discrimination (or distinction) discriminates between legitimate targets, such as soldiers and weapons depots, and illegitimate targets, specifically noncombatants such as civilian populations and their property.

Stopping The Killing And/Or Stopping Human Rights Violations, Edward Friedman

Human Rights & Human Welfare

The relationship between promoting human rights and stopping wars can be perplexing. The 19th century origins of the Geneva Convention and the International Commissions of the Red Cross (ICRC) are warnings about the moral danger, ambiguities, or tensions of bringing war within the arena of human rights considerations. Human rights and war can be a toxic cocktail. One should not want to make war more likely or legitimate or deadly by seeming to say that the killing machine on one side or the other is acting humanely, as if that makes war okay. War is hell.

Proportionality And Unjust Wars, Sarah Stanlick

Human Rights & Human Welfare

As violence rages in the Middle East, policymakers, academics, and the public alike have been embroiled in debate over the proportional use of force. As The Economist article points out, historical grievances leave both Israelis and Palestinians with compelling arguments for defense and resistance. However, at this point, the cycle of violence has perpetuated blame that goes beyond a simple tally sheet. World leaders remain divided on the rights and wrongs of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but human rights groups internationally are crying out for Israel and Hamas to end attacks that “do not discriminate between civilians and military targets.” While …

Proportional To Life, Emma Gilligan

Human Rights & Human Welfare

The Economist piece entitled “Proportional to what?” poses a dangerous question. The notion, as the article suggests, that proportionality in war is a “slippery idea” or that the facts are “nebulous” is the work of either an intentionally provocative or idly cynical author. Whatever the motivation for the words, it is precisely the dismissive tone embodied in such statements that has contributed to and defined the attitude more recently of larger states, like Israel and Russia, to issues of accountability for the death of civilians.

Healing From War To End All Wars, Christien Van Den Anker

Human Rights & Human Welfare

The First World War was known as the war to end all wars. After the Second World War, and especially in reference to the Holocaust, the urgent slogan was “Never Again.” Although these hopes to end war and genocide have not yet been fulfilled, they inspired the worldwide moral stance against war and a host of international instruments and bodies contributed to the protection of both civilians and combatants during war.

February Roundtable: Introduction

Human Rights & Human Welfare

An annotation of:

“Proportional to What?” The Economist. December 30, 2008.

Darfur: In Search Of Peace Exploring Viable Solutions To The Darfur Crisis, George Shepherd, Peter Van Arsdale, Negin Sobhani, Nicole Tanner, Frederick Agyeman-Duah

Human Rights & Human Welfare

The following is a report for the Consultation on Darfur carried out in Nairobi, Kenya by Africa Today Associates, Inc. The event took place June 9‐11, 2008 and was made possible with support from Ford Foundation, Kenya (in collaboration with the Institute of International Education). This report aims to build upon, not replace, the findings of our Consultation in Abuja, Nigeria. It is for this purpose that the findings and points addressed in this report are solely those discussed in Nairobi. Although it is inevitable that the two consultations reflected some overlap on the core issues and discussion points, especially …

The Push To Criminalize Aggression: Something Lost Amid The Gains?, Mark A. Drumbl

Scholarly Articles

The International Criminal Court has jurisdiction over the crime of aggression, but the Rome Statute fails to define the crime. A Special Work- ing Group on the Crime of Aggression, however, has made considerable progress in developing a definition. The consensus that has emerged favors a narrow definition. Three characteristics animate this consensus: (1) that state action is central to the crime; (2) that acts of aggression involve inter- state armed conflict; and (3) that criminal responsibility attaches only to very top political or military leaders. This Article normatively challenges this consensus. I argue that expanding the scope of the …

Tactics In Counterinsurgency, United States Army

United States Army: Field Manuals

Tactics in Counterinsurgency, United States Army Field Manual FM 3-24.2

Reclaiming Skepticism: Lessons From Guantanamo, Heidi Kitrosser

William Mitchell Law Review

No abstract provided.

Flying Under The Radar Or An Unnecessary Intelligence Watchdog: A Review Of The President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, Christine E. Hinrichs

William Mitchell Law Review

No abstract provided.

Responses To Ten Questions, John Yoo

William Mitchell Law Review

No abstract provided.

Gaming The System: "Are You Saying If We Plead Guilty We Will Not Be Able To Be Sentenced To Death?", Adine S. Momoh

William Mitchell Law Review

No abstract provided.

Responses To Ten Questions, Stephen Dycus

William Mitchell Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Use Of Force Against States That Might Have Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Matthew C. Waxman

Michigan Journal of International Law

This Article argues that the most difficult future crises for which this legal debate is most consequential will not resemble those described by Prime Minister Thatcher or Director ElBaradei. Rather, in confronting potentially hostile and aggressive states believed to pose a WMD threat, decisionmakers contemplating the use of force will face an intelligence picture that is open to reasonable debate (contra Thatcher) and irresolvable to high levels of certainty (contra ElBaradei). This paper examines how competing legal approaches deal with this epistemic problem.

A Critical Guide To The Iraqi High Tribunal's Anfal Judgement: Genocide Against The Kurds, Jennifer Trahan

Michigan Journal of International Law

In the Anfal trial, the Iraqi High Tribunal (IHT or the Tribunal) in Baghdad convicted former Iraqi high officials of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Unlike its predecessor-the Dujail trial-the Anfal trial included the presentation of a high volume of documentary and eye-witness evidence. This evidence clearly revealed the existence of a genocidal campaign by the former Iraqi government and military that eliminated an estimated 182,000 Iraqi Kurds in 1988, as part of the eight-phased "Anfal campaign" (the Anfal). Relying on this and other evidence, judges in the Anfal Trial Chamber explained fairly persuasively how genocide, crimes against …

The Safety Of A Nation Versus The Rights Of Suspected Terrorists, Michaela Clark

Undergraduate Review

On January twenty-second, 2009, newly elected President Barack Obama issued an executive order requiring the detention center holding alleged terrorists at Guantanamo Bay to be closed within one year. This proposal may potentially close a chapter on one of America’s most controversial efforts to combat terrorism. Throughout the Bush Administration’s “War on Terror” numerous laws were passed that gave the President and the Department of Defense power to determine who was an enemy combatant and detain indefinitely those they decided fit that profile. The issue of holding people the military deems a threat without giving them a traditional trial continues …

National Security Lawyering And The Persistent Neglect Of Institutional Culture, Peter Margulies

William Mitchell Law Review

No abstract provided.