US Assistance to the State of Israel Report by the Comptroller General of the United States Prepared by the US General Accounting Office GAO/ID-83-51 June 24, 1983: Introduction

1983 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-136
Author(s):  
Comptroller General of the United States ◽  
US General Accounting Office ◽  
Claudia Wright
Author(s):  
Carter Malkasian

The American War in Afghanistan is a full history of the war in Afghanistan between 2001 and 2020. It covers political, cultural, strategic, and tactical aspects of the war and details the actions and decision-making of the United States, Afghan government, and Taliban. The work follows a narrative format to go through the 2001 US invasion, the state-building of 2002–2005, the Taliban offensive of 2006, the US surge of 2009–2011, the subsequent drawdown, and the peace talks of 2019–2020. The focus is on the overarching questions of the war: Why did the United States fail? What opportunities existed to reach a better outcome? Why did the United States not withdraw from the war?


Legal Concept ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 137-144
Author(s):  
Alexey Szydlowski

Introduction: the election law of the US states to date remains insufficiently studied not only in Russia but also abroad. This is due to the fact that the legal regulation of the electoral process in America is attributed to the powers of the states or municipalities, depending on the legal doctrine applied by the state – Cooley Doctrine or Dillon Rule, which objectively imposes a limit on its study and generalization. The purpose of the study is to acquaint a wide range of scientific community with the latest research in the field of the US election law in regard to the first in the domestic law full description of the organizers of elections and referendums at the state and municipal levels in the United States. The author reviews a wide range of regional and local legislation with references to the constitutional, legal and regulatory acts of the US States. The paper is part of a series that explores all fifty subjects of the American Federation and the District of Columbia. Procedure and methods of research: the author analyzes the constitutional and electoral legislation of the United States at the level of Montana at the beginning of 2019. The methodology of the study was the comparative law, formal-legal, formal-dogmatic, specific-sociological, empirical, dialectical, analytical methods, the systematic approach. Results: the information about the organizers of elections and referendums in Montana, which was not previously covered in the Russian scientific literature, is introduced into scientific circulation. The interpretations of certain provisions of the law and legal consciousness of the U.S election law and law enforcement practice are given. The gaps of the legislation requiring additional research are surfaced. The theoretical and practical significance lies in the generalization of both the established and the latest legal sources (constitutions, organic laws, federal laws, charters, by-laws and regulations) of the United States and the subject of the American Federation and the development of proposals for the enrichment of the Russian science and the formation of objective understanding of the processes taking place in the United States in the field of constitutional, electoral law and the state-building. Conclusions: for a systematic and comparative legal analysis the author proposed the review of the legislation on the organizers of elections and referendums of Montana, revealing the existing contradictions, from the point of view of the Russian researcher, which allows considering the full range of elements of the electoral legislation of Montana from a new angle, seeing new legal structures, previously unknown to the domestic statesmen and law enforcers.


2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmad Shah Azami

As part of its “War on Terror”, the United States (US) provided immense sums of money and advanced equipment to Afghan warlords in order to defeat and dismantle the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Nearly two decades after the 2001 US-led intervention in Afghanistan that toppled the Taliban regime, the US continues supporting the warlords in various ways. As the intervention was also aimed at establishing a functioning state and reconstruction of the war-torn country, the US needed the support of local warlords to achieve its goals. However, over time, warlords and warlordism became a major challenge to the postTaliban state-building project and in many ways undermined the overall security and the state monopoly on violence. These warlords, who had been mostly expelled and defeated by the Taliban regime, returned under the aegis of the B52 bombers, recaptured parts of the country and reestablished their fiefdoms with US support and resources. They not only resist giving up the power and prestige they have accumulated over the past few years, but also hamper the effort to improve governance and enact necessary reforms in the country. In addition, many of them run their private militias and have been accused of serious human rights abuses as well as drug trafficking, arms smuggling, illegal mining and extortion in the areas under their control or influence. In many ways, they challenge the government authority and have become a major hurdle to the country’s emerging from lawlessness and anarchy. This paper explores the emergence and reemergence of warlords in Afghanistan as well as the evolution of chaos and anarchy in the country, especially after the US-led intervention of late 2001. It also analyzes the impact of the post-9/11 US support to Afghan warlords and its negative consequences for the overall stability and the US-led state-building process in Afghanistan.


Author(s):  
Rickie Solinger

What is the state of population growth in the United States today, and how is it affected by immigration? According to the 2010 census, the US population has grown 9.7 percent (adding about 27 million people, including about 13 million immigrants) during the past...


2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (S1) ◽  
pp. S11-S27
Author(s):  
Margit COHN

AbstractThis article offers a typology of comparative law research and assesses the state of this body of research in one Asian country – the State of Israel. To identify the work that should be considered ‘comparative’, I classify studies into three groups. Following a short overview of Israel's political and legal system, I assess the ways comparative public law is addressed in the country. Relying on a first-of-its-kind quantitative study of Israeli legal scholarship in English in the field of public law that compares at least two systems, the article shows that the compared systems in Israeli comparative legal research are predominantly western, and that materials from the United States by far outweigh all other sources. The article then considers several possible reasons for the limited gaze eastwards and beyond the United States, granting special attention to the cultural ‘Americanization’ of Israel. Directions for future research are considered in the conclusion, including the expansion of the findings from public law to other fields of law; the comparison of these findings with those of similar systems in Asia and beyond; and the possible ways legal education may promote the development of eastern-bound comparative exercises.


Author(s):  
Patrick Cullen

The United States' diplomatic security apparatus that operates today from Washington DC to Iraq and Afghanistan is uniquely massive. It is incomparable in its size, budget, degree of institutionalization, and level of sophistication when set against both other nations as well as its own humble origins in WWI. To understand why this is so, the first half of this chapter historically maps and causally explains how, and why, US diplomatic security has been transformed over the course of its modern hundred-year history. The second half provides an empirically rich study of the various roles and functions of the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security and the US military units that protect the US diplomatic mission.


2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 599-603 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colton Margus ◽  
Ritu R. Sarin ◽  
Michael Molloy ◽  
Gregory R. Ciottone

AbstractIntroduction:In 2009, the Institute of Medicine published guidelines for implementation of Crisis Standards of Care (CSC) at the state level in the United States (US). Based in part on the then concern for H1N1 pandemic, there was a recognized need for additional planning at the state level to maintain health system preparedness and conventional care standards when available resources become scarce. Despite the availability of this framework, in the years since and despite repeated large-scale domestic events, implementation remains mixed.Problem:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) rejuvenates concern for how health systems can maintain quality care when faced with unrelenting burden. This study seeks to outline which states in the US have developed CSC and which areas of care have thus far been addressed.Methods:An online search was conducted for all 50 states in 2015 and again in 2020. For states without CSC plans online, state officials were contacted by email and phone. Public protocols were reviewed to assess for operational implementation capabilities, specifically highlighting guidance on ventilator use, burn management, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, pediatric standards, and reliance on influenza planning.Results:Thirty-six states in the US were actively developing (17) or had already developed (19) official CSC guidance. Fourteen states had no publicly acknowledged effort. Eleven of the 17 public plans had updated within five years, with a majority addressing ventilator usage (16/17), influenza planning (14/17), and pediatric care (15/17), but substantially fewer addressing care for burn patients (9/17).Conclusion:Many states lacked publicly available guidance on maintaining standards of care during disasters, and many states with specific care guidelines had not sufficiently addressed the full spectrum of hazard to which their health care systems remain vulnerable.


2003 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 357-394
Author(s):  
Thomas C Fischer

The fourteenth amendment to the US Constitution, adopted in 1868, provides in relevant part: ‘All persons born or naturalised in the United States … are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.’ A similar passage in the Treaty of European Union (TEU or Maastricht), Article 8 (now Article 17(1)), declared: ‘Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union.’


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document