National Security Law Commons^™

The Law Of Cyberwar: A Case Study From The Future, Charles J. Dunlap Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Cyberattack! Are We At War?, Charles J. Dunlap Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

How We Lost The High-Tech War Of 2007: A Warning For The Future, Charles J. Dunlap Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Control Over War Powers: A Common Core Of Accountability In Democratic Societies?, Lori Fisler Damrosch

Faculty Scholarship

My first opportunity to read John Hart Ely's ideas on war powers came in 1988, when he published the antecedent of one chapter of War and Responsibility as an article in the Columbia Law Review titled Suppose Congress Wanted a War Powers Act that Worked. The punctuation – without a question mark – makes an important point: The verb "suppose" invites us not to speculate about a counterfactual hypothetical, but rather to assume that Congress must want its own creation to work. Professor Ely's project was to show Congress how to fix it.

But it was already evident in 1988, …

The Command And Control Of United Nations Forces In The Era Of "Peace Enforcement", James W. Houck

Faculty Scholarship

This Article explores how concerns regarding the United Nations' authority to make political, strategic, and operational decisions that comprise the right to command and control UN forces might be reconciled within the framework of the United Nations Charter to create a contemporary and more enduring regime for the command and control of United Nations forces. As Part II demonstrates, command and control issues are not new to the United Nations; indeed, in 1945 the signatories to the United Nations Charter created a model for the command and control of United Nations forces.

While the cold war ensured that this model …

What The Constitution Means By Executive Power, Charles J. Cooper, Orrin Hatch, Eugene V. Rowstow, Michael E. Tigar

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Curtiss-Wright Comes Home: Executive Power And National Security Secrecy, Harold Edgar, Benno C. Schmidt Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

Collectively we face no greater challenge than maintaining sensible perspectives on national security issues. Central to this task is the need to achieve a tolerable balance between secrecy and openness in public debate on such issues. There are real threats to our nation, and we would be foolish to ignore them; history teaches that no culture is guaranteed survival. Yet, how to respond to such threats must be profoundly controversial. The virtue of liberal society is that it values highly the realization of private preferences; the sacrifice of those desires to attain another's vision of collective security will never be …

Constitutional Fate, Philip Chase Bobbitt

Faculty Scholarship

The Mary Ireland Graves Dougherty Lectures in Constitutional Law were established in 1979 at the University of Texas School of Law in the memory of Mrs. Dougherty by her family. Professor Bobbitt delivered the inaugural series of these lectures on three evenings in April 1979. Of those in attendance, only Professor Bobbitt's students, who had witnessed the evolution of his ideas during that year, and a few colleagues with whom he must have shared his thoughts, could have expected what followed on those spring evenings in Austin. His subject was "the question of judicial review." So stated, the subject hardly …

The Espionage Statutes And Publication Of Defense Information, Harold Edgar, Benno C. Schmidt Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

We began this lengthy study of the espionage statutes with grand designs. Our original goal, suggested by the Pentagon Papers litigation, was to elaborate the extent to which constitutional principles limit official power to prevent or punish public disclosure of national defense secrets. But this plan was short-lived. The more we considered the problem, the more convinced we became that the central issues are legislative. The first amendment provides restraints against grossly sweeping prohibitions, but it does not, we believe, deprive Congress of considerable latitude in reconciling the conflict between basic values of speech and security.