Volume 17

Naz Khatoon Modirzadeh*[This essay is available in PDF at this link] Abstract In this Article, I examine a phenomenon unfolding within the United States’s military legal establishment: an effort by a segment of military lawyers to define how the law of armed conflict (LOAC) applies to the wars they anticipate fighting in the future. At the heart of this project lies a reconfiguration of what I call American international humanitarian law (IHL): the United States’s distinctive assemblage of legal interpretations, operational practices, and normative commitments that shape its approach to the conduct of hostilities. While LSCO lawyering is often framed internally […]

Jason Jia-Xi Wu*1[This essay is available in PDF at this link] Abstract The United States and China are engaged in a regulatory arms race over artificial intelligence (AI). Yet, existing debates often overlook a critical factor shaping this AI race: federalism, or the division of regulatory authority between central and local governments. In the United States, states lead in AI regulation, with the federal government taking a limited, backseat role. In China, although authority remains more centralized, local governments have played a pivotal role in implementing and experimenting with AI policies. While institutional differences remain, both countries exhibit signs of partial

Dan Maurer*[This essay is available in PDF at this link] Abstract This article describes the legal confusion that surfaces when a senior military commander dissents from, disobeys, or more offensively defies an apparently lawful order from the commander-in-chief to use force in ways that might check, curb, frustrate, or violate the constitutional liberties of the domestic public. Relying on both hypothetical and historical examples in which the constitutional values of civilian control of the armed forces and domestic civil rights collide, this article suggests that routine reliance on traditional civil-military relations theory and the military’s own criminal law only sets the

Articles “Violent, Vicious, and Fast”: LSCO Lawyering and the Transformation of American IHL By Naz Khatoon Modirzadeh In this Article, I examine a phenomenon unfolding within the United States’s military legal establishment: an effort by a segment of military lawyers to define how the law of armed conflict (LOAC) applies to the wars they anticipate fighting in the future. I refer to this effort as LSCO lawyering: the development, advancement, and institutionalization of a vision of LOAC tailored to large-scale combat operations (LSCOs), understood here as multi-domain warfare against a peer adversary such as China. Drawing on doctrinal materials, planning