Suchergebnisse

Argues that the passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), which incorporated the concept of the illegal enemy combatant into the law, resulted in the legalization of a new legal & political order in the US. Further, the idea of the illegal enemy combatant concerns the relation between the US state & its residents & the US & other countries, with the concept of the illegal enemy combatant situated at the intersections of military & criminal law & US & international law. It is contended that looking at the concept sheds light on various incarnations of US sovereignty & of the US state's international & domestic relations, allowing for a definition of the new for of the US state. The conceptual history of enemy combatant or illegal combatant is traced to the Bush administration's 13 November 2001 executive order; it first applied to foreigners, but was quickly applied to US citizens as well. It is asserted that while the (2004) Hamdi v. Rumsfeld decision seemed a victory for civil liberties, it offered the government the opportunity to ask Congress to custom build a new legal order & that such authority is reflected in the MCA, which provides a political character to the crime(s) of an illegal enemy combatant & legalizes special military tribunals established by the 2001 executive order. These tribunals are supposed to be reserved only for foreign enemy combatants, but the MCA is explicit in applying them to the whole population. Thus, the MCA is seen to transform the state organization via the ending of the formal separation of powers & creating a subjective law placed in the executive's hands, one that no longer respects international law while war becomes an ordinary police operation; US criminal law establishes a new definition of hostility that is globally applied, placing all populations at the mercy of US executive power. D. Edelman

AbstractIssues for program evaluation are raised through an analysis of previous integrative research in multicultural teacher education.

In this research the diplomatic, consular and political relations between Iran and U.S. will be studied. In order to reach our goal and present a clear picture of these two countries relation, we will analyze this relation from its establishment to the current situation.The relation between Iran and the United States began in the mid-to-late 19th century; at the beginning U.S. was considered as a powerful and reliable supporter for Iran, this relation became better after the war and during the government of Mohammad Mosadegh. But, everything changed in this relation between Iran and the United States after Iran revolution. The only worthy negotiation between these two nations during this time resulted in the ill-fated Iran-Contra Hostage crises.In other words, Iran and the United States have a complicated political relation and it is not easy for these two nations to negotiate with each other on a same topic in order to compromise and agree with each other.

This is proposed legislation concerning the determination of rates of tuition and fees for colleges.

Abstract
This article draws parallel between Crawford and Third World Approach of International Law (TWAIL)'s position of "sovereign equality of states" that has been the defining characteristic of the international system. Both TWAIL and Crawford have underscored the importance of "sovereign equality of states" in international law, specifically for states who may not have equitable resources or power in comparison to the most powerful states that can be seen through the abject poverty faced by these states. The core of the issue being the concentration of power with the powerful states in the international legal, political, and economic order.
Both TWAIL and Crawford have repeatedly highlighted the legacy like negative consequences of colonization and de-colonization on states and the individuals residing within these states as their responsibility gets shifted to the government and the legal system of the new state. As a result, their ability to effectively practice "sovereignty and equality" gets affected as it is contingent upon the acceptance by other states or the international community.
However, Crawford puts away this intersectionality during his work at the International Law Commission (ILC), when "sovereign equality of states" does not make it to the ILC's list of peremptory norms. Similarly, TWAIL, call for the need for dialogue to establish content of the universally accepted norms like sovereign equality to fully represent the voices of the non-state; non-governmental, rural, and urban poor residing in the third world countries. In this context, the authors attempt to identify whether this similarity is real or circumstantial?

Giorgio Agamben has used the notion of the state of exception to describe the United States' detention camps in Cuba. Agamben argues that the use of the state of exception in the U.S. can be traced back to President Lincoln's suspension of the right of habeas corpus during the Civil War. This paper suggests that this argument obscures more relevant legal and political precedents that can be found in U.S. territorial legal history. Moreover, while Agamben's argument obscures conceptual distinctions between a state of emergency and a state of exception, his argument also provides resources that can expose the limits of liberal interpretations of the relationship between the State, the citizen, and the law. [Copyright 2006 Elsevier Ltd.]

THE PURPOSE OF THIS ARTICLE IS TO EXAMINE THE EFFECT OF CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES UPON US POLICY TOWARD IRAN. THE FIRST SECTION PROVIDES A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF US NON-PROLIFERATION INSTRUMENTS APPLICABLE TO IRAN AND THE CONSTRAINTS UPON THEM. NEXT, THE PAPER SETS FORTH THE IMPETUS OF US POLICY BY EXAMINING IRAN'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM. THE ANALYSIS THEN TURNS TO THE TWO PRIMARY OBSTACLES FACING UNILATERAL US INITIATIVES--IRAN'S MOTIVATION AND THE CONSTRAINTS OF INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC CO-OPERATION--FOLLOWED BY AN EXAMINATION OF THE POLICY IMPLICATIONS THESE PRESENT.