scholarly journals Civil Liberties and Civil War: The Great Emancipator as Civil Libertarian

1993 ◽  
Vol 91 (6) ◽  
pp. 1353
Author(s):  
Paul Finkelman ◽  
Mark E. Neely
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
Civil Libertarian

Conflict and Courts: Civil War and Judicial Independence across Democracies

2018 ◽  
Vol 72 (3) ◽  
pp. 700-713
Author(s):  
Brad Epperly ◽  
Jacqueline Sievert
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
Judicial Independence ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Legal Studies ◽  
Federal Judiciary ◽  
Cross National

Many argue that during conflict, executive power expands at the expense of the judiciary and civil liberties. Although this is a common conjecture, no systematic study of conflict and judicial independence exists. We argue that conflict, rather than strictly inhibiting independence, is instead a critical juncture that increases the possibility of institutional change, either positive or negative. We assess this claim in three ways: cross-national analyses of (1) de facto and (2) de jure judicial independence after the onset of conflict, and (3) a case study of statutory and jurisdictional changes to the federal judiciary after the outbreak of the U.S. Civil War. Each illustrates that conflict onset is associated with a higher likelihood of changing levels—both decreases and increases—rather than unidirectional decreases in judicial independence. We then present preliminary hypotheses and analyses for three factors that, given conflict onset, should be associated with either improved or worsened conditions for the judiciary. This study has implications for research on conflict, courts, and the rule of law in both political science and legal studies.

scholarly journals Policing the G20 protests: ‘Too much order with too little law’ revisited

2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Legrand ◽  
Simon Bronitt
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
Police Service ◽  
Minimalist Approach ◽  
Policing Strategy ◽  
Do So

In the months leading up to November's G20 summit in 2014, Brisbane's residents would have been forgiven for anticipating the outbreak of a local civil war. Media outlets were leading with headlines stating, among other sensational claims, that ‘G20 anarchists vow chaos and mayhem for Brisbane's streets’, ‘Black Bloc tactics aim for Brisbane G20 shock and awe’ and ‘Destructive protest plan for G20’. Meanwhile, some of the most severe restrictions on civil liberties seen in Australia in recent years were legislated by the Queensland parliament. The G20 Safety and Security Act 2013 (Qld) (the G20 Act) was passed with little demur by a chamber that was only divided over the question of whether the laws were severe enough, with Queensland opposition police spokesman Bill Byrne MP declaring himself ‘surprised’ at the leniency of some of the sentencing provisions and the ‘minimalist’ approach to restricted areas. Of course, in the event the much-anticipated violence did not occur, and the media's pre-summit hyperbole was exposed as just that. Rather more prosaically — and accurately — the post-event headlines dutifully reported ‘Passionate, but mostly peaceful protests’ and ‘G20 protest day wraps up peacefully’. Given that previous G20 summits in London and Toronto saw outbreaks of considerable disorder, we might succumb to the temptation of declaring the peaceful protests in Brisbane to be a vindication of the heavy powers granted by the Queensland parliament. But we believe that to do so would be egregious. Here we reflect on the historical and political motivations underpinning the G20 Act, and draw attention to the rather more measured policing strategy employed by the Queensland Police Service (QPS). We argue that the safety and security of G20 participants and protesters owed little to the restrictive powers granted by the G20 Act, but resulted from a policing strategy that successfully married traditional and modern precepts of policing large events.

scholarly journals Doe v. Ashcroft and Its Place in the Judicial Trend: How the Courts Have Advanced Civil Liberties in Step with Advances in Technology

2006 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Craig M. Glasgow
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Civil War ◽  
World War I ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
The United States ◽  
Habeas Corpus ◽  
World War ◽  
Espionage Act ◽  
War Effort ◽  
History Of

As many jurists and scholars have noted, the United States has a long-standing history of encroaching upon the civil liberties of its citizens, especially during times of war or conflict.2 For instance, during the Civil War, President Lincoln unilaterally suspended the writ of habeas corpus in response to increased violence and the threat of Southern succession.3 During World War I, Postmaster General Albert Burleson used the Espionage Act to suspend mailing privileges for certain “non-mailable” materials, such as newspapers and other dissident publications critical of the war effort.4

Power Sharing and Democracy in Post-Civil War States

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline A. Hartzell ◽  
Matthew Hoddie
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Power Sharing
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document