When the U.S. military began its ""surge"" in Iraq in 2006, counterinsurgency effectively became its dominant approach for fighting wars. Yet many of the major controversies and debates surrounding counterinsurgency operations have turned not on military questions but on legal ones: Who can the U.S. military attack with drones? Is the occupation of Iraq legitimate? What tradeoffs should the military make between self-protection and civilian casualties? What is the right framework for negotiating with the Taliban? How can we build the rule of law in Afghanistan? The Counterinsurgent's Constitut
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
In recent years, governments of industrialized countries throughout the world have expressed growing interest in voluntary alternatives to environmental regulation. Here, one such instrument -- ecolabeling -- is examined that attempts to harness market forces by helping environmentally motivated consumers identify products that are less harmful to the environment. The experience of three government-sponsored programs -- in Canada, the European Union, & the Nordic countries -- with ecolabeling of sanitary paper products provides cause for skepticism concerning the efficacy of the approach. In particular, three fundamental assumptions underlying the ecolabeling model are challenged by the case studies. (1) The responsiveness of ecolabeling agencies & their political sovereigns to pressures to relax certification criteria from firms threatened with a loss of market share can undermine the ability of ecolabels to identify genuine industry leaders. (2) Evidence of industry boycotts of ecolabels in all three jurisdictions studied suggests that at least some industrial sectors are capable of "circling the wagons" to resist competition on environmental grounds. (3) A decline in green consumerism threatens the very premise of ecolabeling, which relies at its core on consumer altruism. It is concluded that, in light of these limitations, ecolabels are best seen as a complement to, rather than substitute for, traditional regulatory instruments. 46 References. Adapted from the source document.
(1). Myanmar: "in the national interest". Prisoners of conscience, torture, summary trials under martial law. - 55 S.; (2). Myanmar: (prisoner of conscience, torture, extrajudicial). - 17 S. : Ill. - ( Amnesty International briefing)
This Article spotlights some of the idiosyncratic features of admiralty law at the time of the founding. These features pose challenges for applying the original understanding of the Constitution to contemporary questions of foreign relations. Federal admiralty courts were unusual creatures by Article III standards. They sat as international tribunals applying international and foreign law, freely hearing cases that implicated sensitive questions of foreign policy, and liberally exercising universal jurisdiction over disputes solely between foreigners. However, these powers did not arise out of the basic features of Article III, but rather from a felt need to opt into the preexisting system of admiralty. Seen in this historic light, admiralty, especially in the early years of the Republic, was an anomalous island of internationalism within the constitutional system. Thus to the extent that the history of foreign relations law is intertwined with admiralty, the lessons of this history cannot be simply transposed to modern foreign relations jurisprudence. This could have potentially significant implications, given that a list of canonical nineteenth century foreign relations cases reads like a port registry: The Schooner Exchange, Charming Betsy, La Jeune Eugenie, The Antelope, and The Paquete Habana. This Article is part of the symposium at the Saint Louis University School of Law on "The Use and Misuse of History in Foreign Relations Law," and comments on Prof. Ingrid Wuerth's An Originalism for Foreign Affairs? Prof. Wuerth questions the applicability of originalism. This Article argues that the originalist method of constitutional interpretation applies to foreign affairs questions, and not just to matters of individual rights. However, as the admiralty example developed here shows, Prof. Wuerth is correct that foreign affairs originalism requires a great sensitivity to historical context. Ideas developed within a particular legal framework may not apply when that framework no longer exists.
Civil war has been a fact of political life throughout recorded history. However, unlike inter-state wars, international law has not traditionally regulated such conflicts. How then can we explain the post-1945 emergence and evolution of international treaty rules regulating the conduct of internal armed conflict: the 'Civil War Regime'? Negotiating Civil War combines insights derived from Realist, Rationalist, Liberal, and Constructivist approaches to International Relations to answer this question, revisiting the negotiation of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the 1977 Additional Protocols, and the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. This study provides a rigorous, critical account of the making of the Civil War Regime. Sophisticated and persuasive, it illustrates the complex interplay of material, ideational, social, and strategic factors in shaping these rules with important lessons for the making and unmaking of international law in a rapidly shifting international political, economic, and security environment.
