The Constitutional Responsibility of Congress for Military Engagements

1995 ◽  
Vol 89 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lori Fisler Damrosch
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
International Level ◽  
Military Operation ◽  
Constitutional Level ◽  
Factual Proposition ◽  
The U.S

The U.S.-led military operation in Haiti has unfolded with minimal violence and few casualties so far. That factual proposition—which is necessarily subject to revision—has important ramifications under both U.S. constitutional law and international law. On the constitutional level, the avoidance of hostilities defused what was poised to become a serious confrontation between the President and the Congress. On the international level, doubts in some quarters about the legitimacy of a forcible intervention, although not entirely allayed, were somewhat quieted with the achievement of a negotiated solution, which enabled U.S. troops to bring about the return to power of President Aristide without having to shoot their way into Haiti.

International Lawlessness in Grenada

1984 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 172-175
Author(s):  
Francis A. Boyle ◽  
Abram Chayes ◽  
Isaak Dore ◽  
Richard Falk ◽  
Martin Feinrider ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Reagan Administration ◽  
Convincing Evidence ◽  
American People ◽  
Military Operation ◽  
Independent State ◽  
Medical College ◽  
American States ◽  
Domestic Affairs ◽  
The U.S

The Reagan administration’s arguments purporting to justify the invasion of Grenada under international law must not be allowed to inveigle the American people into supporting this violent intervention into the domestic affairs of another independent state. Throughout the 20th century, the U.S. Government has routinely concocted evanescent threats to the lives and property of U.S. nationals as pretexts to justify armed interventions into sister American states. The transparency of these pretexts was just as obvious then as it is now. The Reagan administration has not established by means of clear and convincing evidence that there did in fact exist an immediate threat to the safety of U.S. citizens in Grenada. Even then, such a threat could have justified only a limited military operation along the lines of the Israeli raid at Entebbe for the sole purpose of evacuating the major concentration of U.S. nationals at the medical college.

Kidnaping by Government Order: A Follow-up

1990 ◽  
Vol 84 (3) ◽  
pp. 712-716 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas F. Lowenfeld
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
International Law ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Due Process ◽  
The United States ◽  
Foreign Country ◽  
Foreign Countries ◽  
Due Process Of Law ◽  
The U.S

In my full-length article U.S. Law Enforcement Abroad, I argued that government-sponsored abduction from foreign countries was not only distasteful, but contrary to international law and U.S. constitutional law. Though I acknowledged that the reported decisions here and abroad did not, on the whole, support my argument, I suggested that these decisions were out of step with contemporary international law and current American views of due process of law. I expressed skepticism about many of the defenses of the practice that had been raised by American officials and had too often, in my judgment, been accepted by American courts. In particular, I urged that no great faith be placed in assertions by the U.S. Government that abduction of persons who ended up in American custody were carried out solely by the police of the foreign country, that the United States had no knowledge of or participation in torture, or that the foreign country really consented to the operation, though it could not say so publicly.

scholarly journals Republics of Donbass as an international political and legal precedent

2019 ◽  
pp. 143-147
Author(s):  
Vladislav V. Gruzdev ◽  
Aleksandr I. Levchenkov
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
International Level ◽  
Universal Principle ◽  
Military Operation ◽  
Legal Precedent ◽  
Sphere Of Influence ◽  
The Way

The article analyses the events taking place in Donbass from 2014 to 2019, to be exact, the very fact of the appearance of the peoples' republics of Lugansk and Donetsk, the way in which these republics appeared and the way of their possible international legalisation. The study was carried out not only at Russian, but also at the international level. The authors' vision of solving the problem is proposed, in particular, the idea is that the implementation of the fundamental (universal) principle of modern international law – the principle of universal respect for human rights and freedoms in conditions of the Ukraine military operation affecting the citizens of the republics in the sphere of influence of Russia – is impossible without implementing the principle of self-determination of peoples and nations. Only with such concrete conflict binding, the principle of self-determination of peoples and nations can predominate over the principles of territorial integrity and inviolability of borders.

Substantive Right to Life Obligations

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Park
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Military Operation ◽  
General Terms ◽  
The Right

There is a difference between a State’s substantive and procedural right to life obligations. This chapter explores what amount to a state’s substantive right to life obligations with reference to Article 2, ECHR and Article 6, ICCPR. The respective provisions are analysed to determine the extent of a state’s substantive right to life obligations during armed conflict and then a comparison between the two international law instruments is undertaken. In order to undertake such a comparison, the exceptions to the right to life in both the ECHR and ICCPR are examined. Once determined, the planning and conduct of a military operation are considered, to assess the extent to which, in general terms, right to life obligations are considered in these areas.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document