Suchergebnisse

Will Donald trump international law? Since Trump's administration took office in January 2017, this question has haunted almost every issue area of international law. This work, by one of our leading international lawyers - a former Legal Adviser of the U.S. State Department, former Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights, and former Yale Law Dean - argues that President Trump has thus far enjoyed less success than many believe, because he does not own the pervasive 'transnational legal process' that governs these issue areas. This text shows how those opposing Trump's policies in his administration's first two years have successfully triggered transnational legal process as part of a collective counterstrategy akin to Muhammad Ali's famous 'rope-a-dope.'

Is President Donald Trump destroying the global order? The conventional wisdom is yes. But this book argues that he is having much less success than is commonly recognized because our international relations are embedded in a legal order that he poorly understands, and does not control.

PART ONE: THE PRECEDENT -- How theIran-Contra Investigators Failed: An Autopsy -- Recognizing the Pattern of History -- PART TWO: THE PROBLEM -- The National Security Constitution We Inherited: Fom the Fonding to the National Security Act -- The Iran-Contra Affair as an Assault on the Postwar National Security Constitution -- Why the President Almost Always Wins in Foregn Affars: Executive Initiative and Congressional Acquiescence -- Why the President Almost Always Wins in Foreign Affairs:TheProblem of Judicial Tolerance -- PART THREE: THE PRESCRIPTION -- Restoring the National Security Constitution: Some Guiding Principle -- Restoring the National Security Constitution: Some Specific Proposals -- A National Security Constitution forthe Posthegemonic Age

What was distinctive about this event is that it is not just the use of force for aggression. This is the use of blatant war crimes as a tool of naked aggression. The Russians started war crimes from day one, indiscriminate shelling from afar. We now see, in Bucha, that when they got up close, they tortured people; they bound them; in the case of women, they raped them; they summarily executed them; and they threw them into mass graves. This is one of the most blatant combinations of atrocity and aggression we have seen in many decades.

The legality of unilateral humanitarian intervention raises three questions:

I appear today solely to comment upon Mr. Gonzales's positions regarding three issues on which I have both legal expertise and government experience: the illegality of torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment; the scope of the president's constitutional powers to authorize torture and cruel treatment by U.S. officials; and the applicability of the Geneva Conventions on the Laws of War to alleged combatants held in U.S. custody.

What did the United States Supreme Court mean when it famously said, "International law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction, as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination"? Perhaps the Court was suggesting that, in an interdependent world, United States courts should not decide cases without paying "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind," in the memorable words of the Declaration of Independence. The framers and early Justices understood that the global legitimacy of a fledgling nation crucially depended upon the compatibility of its domestic law with the rules of the international system within which it sought acceptance. Their recognition seems both prudent and sensible. Even today, for any nation consciously to ignore global standards not only would ensure constant frictions with the rest of the world, but also would diminish that nation's ability to invoke those international rules that served its own national purposes.

Collectively, you law librarians gathered here must have been affected by the many legal fallouts from September 11: the Office of Homeland Security, the USA Patriot Act, the Use of Military Force Resolution-, the thousands of casualties of all nationalities; the detainees; the military commissions; the prosecutions; the habeas cases. But even as you have studied and researched these individual issues, you have probably wondered whether something bigger is going on. Are these legal fallouts only symptoms of a much larger phenomenon: a post-World War II legal system placed under stress by September 11?