10 War Powers and the War on Terrorism

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradley Curtis A
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
War On Terrorism ◽  
Targeted Killing ◽  
War Powers ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Collective Self ◽  
The U.S

This chapter considers the relevance of international law within the U.S. legal system to the United States’ initiation and conduct of war, and it also discusses a variety of international law-related issues that have arisen in connection with the “war on terrorism” following the attacks of September 11, 2001. After briefly reviewing some of the most relevant treaties relating to war and warfare, the chapter considers the Constitution’s distribution of war authority between Congress and the president, as well as the contours of the 1973 War Powers Resolution. It then discusses how international law, including the provisions in the UN Charter relating to the authority of the Security Council, as well as collective self-defense treaties, might affect the president’s war authority. The chapter also discusses legal issues relating to the placement of U.S. troops under foreign or UN command. The chapter then shifts to the “war on terrorism,” and discusses the relevance of international law, including the Geneva Conventions, to issues concerning the scope of the military’s detention authority in that conflict. International law and other issues relating to the use of military commissions to try terrorist suspects are also considered. The chapter concludes by discussing legal debates relating to coercive interrogation and targeted killing.

10 War Powers and the War on Terrorism

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradley Curtis A
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
War On Terrorism ◽  
Targeted Killing ◽  
War Powers ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Collective Self ◽  
The U.S

This chapter considers the relevance of international law within the U.S. legal system to the United States’ initiation and conduct of war. After briefly reviewing some of the most relevant treaties relating to war and warfare, the chapter considers the Constitution’s distribution of war authority between Congress and the President. It then discusses how international law, including the provisions in the UN Charter relating to the authority of the Security Council, as well as collective self-defense treaties, might affect the President’s war authority. The chapter then shifts to the “war on terrorism” and discusses the relevance of international law, including the Geneva Conventions, to issues concerning the scope of the military’s detention authority in that conflict, with particular reference to the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. International law and other issues relating to the use of military commissions to try terrorist suspects are also considered. The chapter concludes by discussing legal debates relating to coercive interrogation and targeted killing.

scholarly journals International Law in the US Legal System

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradley Curtis A
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
The United States ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
War Powers ◽  
Jus Cogens ◽  
The U.S

International Law in the U.S. Legal System provides a wide-ranging overview of how international law intersects with the domestic legal system of the United States, and points out various unresolved issues and areas of controversy. Curtis Bradley explains the structure of the U.S. legal system and the various separation of powers and federalism considerations implicated by this structure, especially as these considerations relate to the conduct of foreign affairs. Against this backdrop, he covers all of the principal forms of international law: treaties, executive agreements, decisions and orders of international institutions, customary international law, and jus cogens norms. He also explores a number of issues that are implicated by the intersection of U.S. law and international law, such as treaty withdrawal, foreign sovereign immunity, international human rights litigation, war powers, extradition, and extraterritoriality. This book highlights recent decisions and events relating to the topic, including various actions taken during the Trump administration, while also taking into account relevant historical materials, including materials relating to the U.S. Constitutional Founding. Written by one of the most cited international law scholars in the United States, the book is a resource for lawyers, law students, legal scholars, and judges from around the world.

The International Fact-Finding Commission: Article 90 of Protocol I additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions

1991 ◽  
Vol 31 (281) ◽  
pp. 167-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Ashley Roach
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Department Of Defense ◽  
The United States ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Joint Chiefs Of Staff ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Fact Finding ◽  
The U.S

The United States considers many provisions of Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 to be either statements of customary international law or to reflect what that law should be. It is in that vein that the United States views Article 90 on the International Fact-Finding Commission. The U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) military analysis of the Protocols expressed the views of the U.S. Department of Defense on Article 90 as follows:“One major innovation of the Protocol is the creation of a permanent 15-member International Fact-Finding Commission to investigate alleged grave breaches or serious violations of the Protocols and the Conventions and to facilitate, through its good offices, the restoration of an attitude of respect for the Conventions and [the] Protocol”.

scholarly journals International Law in the U.S. Legal System

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradley Curtis A
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
War Powers ◽  
System P ◽  
Jus Cogens ◽  
The U.S

This book provides an overview of how international law intersects with the domestic legal system of the United States, and points out various unresolved issues and areas of controversy. The book covers all of the principal forms of international law: treaties, decisions and orders of international institutions, customary international law, and jus cogens norms. It also explores a number of issues that are implicated by the intersection of U.S. law and international law, such as the use of “executive agreements” in lieu of treaties, foreign sovereign immunity, international human rights litigation under the Alien Tort Statute, war powers, extradition, international criminal prosecution, and extraterritoriality. The book highlights recent decisions and events relating to the topic (including decisions and events arising out of the war on terrorism), while also taking into account relevant historical materials, including materials relating both to the U.S. constitutional founding and to long-standing practices of Congress and the executive branch.

Foreign Relations Law

2019 ◽  
pp. 43-61
Author(s):  
Karen Knop
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
The U.S

The two starting points for this chapter are that fields of law are inventions, and that fields matter as analytical frames. All legal systems deal with foreign relations issues, but few have a field of “foreign relations law.” As the best-stocked cabinet of issues and ideas, U.S. foreign relations law would be likely to generate the field elsewhere in the process of comparison. But some scholars, particularly outside the United States, see the nationalist or sovereigntist strains of the U.S. field, and perhaps even just its use as a template, as demoting international law. The chapter begins by asking whether this apprehension can be alleviated by using international law or an existing comparative law field to inventory the foreign relations issues to be compared. Finding neither sufficient, it turns to the U.S. field as an initial frame and sketches three types of anxieties that the U.S. experience has raised or might raise for international law. The chapter concludes by suggesting how Campbell McLachlan’s allocative conception of foreign relations law might be adapted so as to turn such anxieties about international law into opportunities.

scholarly journals Biden Administration Relies on Constitutional Authority and Unwilling or Unable Theory of Self-Defense for Airstrikes in Syria

2021 ◽  
Vol 115 (3) ◽  
pp. 567-572
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Legal Authority ◽  
Military Policy ◽  
Presidential Approval ◽  
War Powers ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Drone Strikes ◽  
Individual Self

On February 25, 2021, the United States conducted a strike targeting Iranian-backed militia group facilities in Syria. The strike, which came in response to a February 15, 2021 attack on U.S. interests in Iraq, marked the Biden administration's first known exercise of executive war powers. As domestic authority for the strike, President Joseph Biden, Jr. cited his authority under Article II of the U.S. Constitution and did not rely on the 2001 or 2002 Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMFs). For international legal authority, Biden relied on individual self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, stating that Syria was “unwilling or unable” to prevent further attacks on the United States by these non-state actors within its territory. The strikes garnered mixed reactions from Congress, where efforts are underway to repeal or reform extant AUMFs as well as the War Powers Resolution (WPR). The Biden administration is also undertaking a review of current U.S. military policy on the use of force, and during this process, it has prohibited drone strikes outside of conventional battlefields, absent presidential approval.

International Human Rights Law

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aryeh Neier
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
The Status ◽  
Civilized Society ◽  
The U.S

This chapter focuses on the two sources of international law: custom and treaties. Customary international law is the term used to describe rules that are so widely accepted and so deeply held that they help to define what it means to belong to a civilized society. The question of whether customary international law is binding on the United States came before the U.S. Supreme Court as long ago as 1900 in a case called Paquete Habana. Whereas treaty law often covers the same ground as customary international law. Torture is forbidden by customary international law, for example, and prohibitions against torture are also set forth in several multilateral treaties. The effect is to reinforce recognition that a particular norm set forth in a treaty has the status of customary law.

International Human Rights Law

2020 ◽  
pp. 94-116
Author(s):  
Aryeh Neier
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
The Status ◽  
Civilized Society ◽  
The U.S

This chapter discusses custom and treaties as the two sources of international law. It explains the customary international law as the term used to describe rules that are widely accepted and deeply held and are used to define what it means to belong to a civilized society. It also recounts the case called “Paquete Habana” in the U.S. Supreme Court that addresses the question of whether customary international law is binding on the United States. The chapter talks about the treaty law or conventional law as the source of multilateral conventions that often covers the same ground as customary international law. It analyzes the prohibitions against “torture” that are set forth in several multilateral treaties and reinforce recognition that a particular norm set forth in a treaty has the status of customary law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document