National Security Law Commons^™

Eco-Terrorist Acts During The Persian Gulf War: Is International Law Sufficient To Hold Iraq Liable?, Laura Edgerton

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The Cuban Liberty And Democratic Solidarity Act Of 1996 - Implications For Nafta, Dean C. Bucci

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Neutrality, The Acquis Communautaire And The European Union's Search For A Common Foreign And Security Policy Under Title V Of The Maastricht Treaty: The Accession Of Austria, Finland And Sweden, G. Porter Elliott

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Democracy's Struggle Against Terrorism: The Powers Of Military Commanders To Decide Upon The Demolition Of Houses, The Imposition Of Curfews, Blockades, Encirclements And The Declaration Of An Area As A Closed Military Area, Emanuel Gross

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Legalizing Assassination? Terrorism, The Central Intelligence Agency, And International Law, Daniel B. Pickard

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Revamping International Securites Laws To Break The Financial Infrastructure Of Global Terrorism, Sireesha Chenmolu

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Is Honesty Still The Best Policy: Considering Legal Options For Missile Defense And The Antiballistic Missile Treaty, Hillary A. Smith

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Rogue States, Weapons Of Mass Destruction, And Terrorism: Was Security Council Approval Necessary For The Invasion Of Iraq?, Jason Pedigo

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

International Law And The Nuclear Threat In Kashmir: A Proposal For A U.S.-Led Resolution To The Dispute Under Un Authority, Billy Merck

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The Enhanced Proliferation Control Initiative: National Security Necessity Or Unconstitutionally Vague?, Daniel H. Joyner

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

New Death Breathes Life Into Old Fears: The Murder Of Rosemary Nelson And The Importance Of Reforming The Police In Northern Ireland, Howard J. Russell

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The Canadian Connection: Why The State Department Is Ignoring A Loophole In The Arms Export Control Act, Nicole Day

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Big Success Or "Big Brother?": Great Britain's National Identification Scheme Before The European Court Of Human Rights, Jennifer Morris

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Defining The Battlefield In Contemporary Conflict And Counterterrorism: Understanding The Parameters Of The Zone Of Combat, Laurie R. Blank

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Redefining The Right To Be Let Alone: Privacy Rights And The Constitutionality Of Technical Surveillance Measures In Germany And The United States, Nicole Jacoby

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Rethinking The Role And Regulation Of Private Military Companies: What The United States And United Kingdom Can Learn From Shared Experiences In The War On Terror, A. Grayson Irvin

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Who's Checking?: Taking A Look At Recently Enacted Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Laws In The United States And Zimbabwe And Their Impact On The Separation Of Powers, Andrew M. O'Connell

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The State Secrets Privilege And Corporate Complicity In Extraordinary Rendition, Lucien J. Dhooge

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Masquerading Justiciability: The Misapplication Of State Secrets Privilege In Mohamed V. Jeppesen--Reflections From A Comparative Perspective, Galit Raguan

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The Consequences Of A "War" Paradigm For Counterterrorism: What Impact On Basic Rights And Values?, Laurie R. Blank

Georgia Law Review

Policy makers have used the rhetoric of "war"
throughout the past century to describe a major
governmental or societal effort to combat an evil that
threatens society, national security or other communal

good. It is both a rhetorical tool and a resource
mobilization, and above all a coalescing of authority to
meet the challenge, whether poverty, drugs or-most
recently-terrorism. Soon after 9/11 made al Qaeda a
household word, the Bush Administration characterized
U.S. efforts to defeat al Qaeda as the "War on Terror."
Here, however, the terminology of "war" goes far beyond
rhetoric, resource re-allocation and centralizing of
authority. When …

Samantar And Executive Power, Peter B. Rutledge

Scholarly Works

This essay examines Samantar v. Yousuf in the context of broader debate about the relationship between federal common law and executive power. Samantar represents simply the latest effort by the Executive Branch to literally shape the meaning of law through a process referred to in the literature as “executive lawmaking.” While traditional accounts of executive lawmaking typically have treated the idea as a singular concept, Samantar demonstrates the need to bifurcate the concept into at least two different categories: acts of executive lawmaking decoupled from pending litigation and acts of executive lawmaking taken expressly in response to litigation. As Samantar …

"Undead" Wartime Cases: Stare Decisis And The Lessons Of History, Harlan G. Cohen

Scholarly Works

References to the “lessons of history” are ubiquitous in law. Nowhere has this been more apparent than in recent debates over U.S. counterterrorism policy. In response to the Bush Administration’s reliance on World War II-era decisions - Johnson v. Eisentrager, Ex Parte Quirin, Hirota v. MacArthur, and In re Yamashita - opponents have argued that these decisions have been rejected by the “lessons of history.” They argue that the history of wartime cases is one marked by executive aggrandizement, panic-driven attacks on civil liberties, and overly quiescent courts - none of which should be repeated.

But what does it really …

Detainee Transfers After Munaf: Executive Deference And The Convention Against Torture, Jeffrey H. Fisher

Georgia Law Review

This Note discusses the terrorist detainee transfer process and examines the level of deference courts should give the Executive Branch in determining whether a detainee could be tortured in a transferee country. In Munaf v. Geren, the Supreme Court suggested that the judicial branch is ill- suited to question the Executive's transfer determinations. Nevertheless, it did not definitively preclude judicial review of transfer determinations under the Convention Against Torture and left open the possibility of stringent court scrutiny in a "more extreme case." This Note proposes a case-by-case balancing test to determine the appropriate level of Executive deference. Courts should …

Legislating Clear-Statement Regimes In National-Security Law, Jonathan F. Mitchell

Georgia Law Review

Congress's national-security legislation will often require clear and specific congressional authorization before the executive can undertake certain actions. The War Powers Resolution,for example, prohibits any law from authorizing military hostilities unless it "specifically authorizes"them. And the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 required its own amendment or repeal of its "exclusive means"provision before authorizing warrantless electronic surveillance. But efforts to legislate clear-statement regimes in national-security law have failed to induce compliance. The Clinton Administration inferred congressional "authorization" for the 1999 Kosovo War from an appropriations statute that failed to specifically authorize the conflict. And the Bush Administration inferred congressional "authorization"for …

The Rhetoric Of Necessity (Or, Sanford Levinson's Pinteresque Conversation), Kevin Jon Heller

Scholarly Works

It may seem odd to begin a discussion of whether the President should have the power to act extraconstitutionally in times of necessity with a quote from The Dwarves. As I researched this Comment, though, I could not escape the uneasy feeling that I was witnessing what could only be described as a Pinteresque conversation--a conversation in which Professor Levinson and his interlocutors, "while exchanging remarks apparently on a common topic, and using mutually comprehensible vocabulary, are revealed as experiencing a profound failure to communicate with one another." Professor Levinson wants to find a workable balance between constitutional restraints and …

Waging War Against Terror: An Essay For Sandy Levinson, Philip Bobbitt

Georgia Law Review

Wars are acts of State, and therefore there has never been a "war on terror." Of course states have fought terrorism, in many guises, for centuries. But a war on terror had to await the development of states-including virtual states like al Qaeda's global ummah 2-whose constitutional order was not confined to a particular territory or national group and for whom terror could therefore be a permanent state of international affairs, either sought in order to prevent persons within a state's control from resisting oppression by accessing global, empowering resources and networks, or suffered because other states wished to press …

The Rhetoric Of Necessity (Or, Sanford Levinson's Pinteresque Conversation), Kevin J. Heller

Georgia Law Review

It may seem odd to begin a discussion of whether the President should have the power to act extraconstitutionally in times of necessity with a quote from The Dwarfs. As I researched this Comment, though, I could not escape the uneasy feeling that I was witnessing what could only be described as a Pinteresque conversation-a conversation in which Professor Levinson and his interlocutors, "while exchanging remarks apparently on a common topic, and using mutually comprehensible vocabulary, are revealed as experiencing a profound failure to communicate with one another."2 Professor Levinson wants to find a workable balance between constitutional restraints and …

The Emancipation Proclamation And The Commander In Chief Power, Michael S. Paulsen

Georgia Law Review

Levinson, a good Socratic teacher, poses the question what is the relationship of emergency or necessity to constitutional power, constitutional rights, and constitutional interpretation generally, and surrounds it with a characteristically fascinating discussion. But while his leanings are clear, he does not clearly answer the question his discussion poses. One can certainly infer that Levinson dislikes Carl Schmitt's legal theories of emergency, which he sees as justifying Hitler's rise to power. And it certainly comes through quite clearly that Levinson feels the same way about the U.S. Department of Justice's legal analysis concerning detention and interrogation of war prisoners (which …

Small Emergencies, Kim L. Scheppele

Georgia Law Review

In this Comment, I argue that the "normal" American constitutional order can be seen as thoroughly shot through with emergency law and that this constant sense of emergency has fundamentally shaped the possibilities of American constitutionalism. America is now-and has been since the First World War-virtually always in a state of emergency, one way or another. Sometimes these states of emergency have been local, other times they have been federal, and still other times they have been international. Sometimes these states of emergency have been political; other times they have been economic or social. Sometimes these states of emergency have …

Time To Look Abroad? The Legal Regulation Of Emergency Powers, William E. Scheuerman

Georgia Law Review

The starting point for Professor Levinson's thought-provoking ruminations on emergency power and constitutionalism is his deep skepticism about the Bush Administration's legal response to 9/11.1 In the context of the "war on terror," Professor Levinson accurately recounts, the Administration has claimed the right to override both longstanding domestic and international legal commitments.2 Even strict prohibitions on torture, it seems, are not exempt from the President's constitutionally based prerogative as "Commander in Chief to keep the nation out of harm's way, and only he apparently possesses the rightful authority to determine the fate of accused terrorists. Although many constitutional lawyers will …