Search results

AbstractThe trend toward the "humanization" of international law reflects a greater emphasis on individuals rather than simply states as objects of concern. The advance of human rights law (HRL) has been an important impetus for this trend. Some observers suggest that humanization can be furthered even more by applying HRL rather than international humanitarian law (IHL) to hostilities between states and nonstate armed groups, unless a state explicitly declares that it is engaged in an armed conflict. This essay argues, however, that a court should not defer to a state's characterization of hostilities, but should base its analysis on whether hostilities meet the criteria for an armed conflict. Applying HRL to hostilities that effectively are an armed conflict but not acknowledged as such risks diluting the legitimacy and normative force of HRL. On the one hand, if a court applies conventional stringent HRL standards, this body of law may be seen as unrealistic and is likely to be ignored. On the other hand, a court that adapts HRL standards to armed conflict may need to take a consequentialist approach at odds with HRL's deontological foundations. Clearly differentiating between HRL and IHL may thus best promote the humanization of warfare.

The trend toward the "humanization" of international law reflects a greater emphasis on individuals rather than simply states as objects of concern. The advance of human rights law (HRL) has been an important impetus for this trend. Some observers suggest that humanization can be furthered even more by applying HRL rather than international humanitarian law (IHL) to hostilities between states and nonstate armed groups, unless a state explicitly declares that it is engaged in an armed conflict. This essay argues, however, that a court should not defer to a state's characterization of hostilities, but should base its analysis on whether hostilities meet the criteria for an armed conflict. Applying HRL to hostilities that effectively are an armed conflict but not acknowledged as such risks diluting the legitimacy and normative force of HRL. On the one hand, if a court applies conventional stringent HRL standards, this body of law may be seen as unrealistic and is likely to be ignored. On the other hand, a court that adapts HRL standards to armed conflict may need to take a consequentialist approach at odds with HRL's deontological foundations. Clearly differentiating between HRL and IHL may thus best promote the humanization of warfare.

The intense debate over US targeted drone strikes outside war zones has been limited by the failure to review and assess a considerable body of quantitative research and qualitative material on the impacts of such strikes on terrorist groups and civilians. This book fills an important gap in the literature by conducting a careful and rigorous review of such evidence. It argues that decisions about the use of targeted strikes as a counterterrorism instrument, as well as legal and ethical evaluations of such use, must be informed by our best understanding of the insights that empirical evidence can provide on the effectiveness of strikes and the costs they impose on populations where they occur. Mitt Regan is McDevitt Professor of Jurisprudence and Co-Director of the Center on National Security at Georgetown Law Center, and Senior Fellow at the Stockdale Center for Ethical Leadership at the US Naval Academy. .

Hybrid Threats and Grey Zone Conflict explores the legal dimension of strategic competition below the threshold of war, assessing the key legal and ethical questions posed for liberal democracies. Bringing together diverse scholarly and practitioner perspectives, the volume introduces readers to the conceptual and practical difficulties arising in this area, the rich debates the topic has generated, and the challenges that countering hybrid threats and grey zone conflict poses for liberal democracies.

Intro -- Contents -- Introduction: BigLaw -- 1. Business and Profession: Bridging the Divide -- 2. Clients in the Driver's Seat -- 3. Encouraging Entrepreneurs -- 4. Entrepreneurs and Collaboration -- 5. Pruning for Productivity -- 6. The Material Economy of Compensation -- 7. The Symbolic Economy of Compensation -- 8. Luring Laterals -- 9. Trusted Advisors and Service Providers -- Conclusion: Money and Meaning in the Modern Law Firm -- Appendix on the Research Project -- Acknowledgments -- Notes -- References -- Index.

Frontmatter -- CONTENTS -- Introduction: BigLaw -- 1 Business and Profession: Bridging the Divide -- 2 Clients in the Driver's Seat -- 3 Encouraging Entrepreneurs -- 4 Entrepreneurs and Collaboration -- 5 Pruning for Productivity -- 6 The Material Economy of Compensation -- 7 The Symbolic Economy of Compensation -- 8 Luring Laterals -- 9 Trusted Advisors and Service Providers -- Conclusion: Money and Meaning in the Modern Law Firm -- Appendix on the Research Project -- Acknowledgments -- Notes -- References -- Index

This volume examines the ethical issues that arise as a result of national security intelligence collection and analysis. Powerful new technologies enable the collection, communication, and analysis of national security data on an unprecedented scale. Data collection now plays a central role in intelligence practice, yet this development raises a host of ethical and national security problems, such as: privacy; autonomy; threats to national security and democracy by foreign states; and accountability for liberal democracies. This volume provides a comprehensive set of in-depth ethical analyses of these problems by combining contributions from both ethics scholars and intelligence practitioners. It provides the reader with a practical understanding of relevant operations, the issues that they raise, and analysis of how responses to these issues can be informed by a commitment to liberal democratic values. This combination of perspectives is crucial in providing an informed appreciation of ethical challenges that is also grounded in the realities of the practice of intelligence. This book will be of great interest to all students of intelligence studies, ethics, security studies, foreign policy, and International Relations.

The threat posed by the recent rise of transnational non-state armed groups does not fit easily within either of the two basic paradigms for state responses to violence. The civilian paradigm focuses on the interception of demonstrable immediate threats to the safety of others. The military paradigm focuses on threats posed by collective actors who pose a danger to the state's ability to maintain basic social order and, at times, the state. The book suggests, that we need not see the options as confined to this binary choice as it evaluates the philosophical and ethical implications of using both military and non-military frameworks for pursuing counterterrorism operations.