The Well-Defended Domains: Eurocentric International Law and the Making of the Ottoman Office of Legal Counsel

Author(s):  
Aimee M. Gennell
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Grimm Arsenault

Following the attacks of 9/11, the normative challenges put forth by the lawyers inside the Bush administration consisted of two main arguments: that international law should play less of a role in dictating U.S. policy, and that the executive branch has primary control over setting U.S. foreign policy. The decisions on detainee treatment would not have occurred without the justification provided by the lawyers in the executive branch. Despite their lack of political authority, these men wielded formidable intellects, access to key decision-makers, and positions of influence within key offices such as the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice to fundamentally shape U.S. detainee policy in the GWOT.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Smeda

Cornell International Law Journal: Vol. 50 : No. 2 , Article 5. U.S. border agents detained at least 52,000 unaccompanied minors from only four Central American countries—Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras—in 2014, while 95,000 unaccompanied children sought asylum in Europe in 2015.Given the ongoing turmoil in various parts of the world, these numbers will likely rise. Children are narrowly escaping their native countries. With little help available from legal counsel and little time to gather supporting evidence, more children are relying on the gamble of a positive credibility assessment in an asylum application.The stakes are high—either a new life in the United States, or probable fatality at home if deported.The lives of all children should receive more security than the subjective judgment of the immigration official conducting the child’s credibility assessment. Current strategies used to increase the accuracy of credibility determinations are often misguided by outdated methodology. By implementing more robust, updated guidelines to increase the accuracy of credibility appraisals and ensuring that the recommendations are practiced with regularity, we can enhance the visibility of children facing persecution.


2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 862-907
Author(s):  
Jake Romm

Former Office of Legal Counsel lawyer John Yoo’s criminal liability for the U.S. Torture Program has been a topic of debate ever since the so-called ‘Torture Memos’ came to light. The debate has primarily focused on the criminal case against Yoo under domestic U.S. law or under abstract notions of ‘international law’. In light of the International Criminal Court’s investigation into the situation in Afghanistan there is reason to hope for a possible indictment of Yoo. This article fills in a gap in the literature surrounding Yoo’s culpability by straightforwardly delineating the prima facie case against John Yoo under the Rome Statute.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document