Main Volumes

By Michael Schmitt – Click here to read the full text of the Article This article discusses how states attempt to fulfill their obligations under international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law to respond to alleged violations of international law by their militaries during armed conflict. Part I lays out requirements under IHL to investigate and prosecute war crimes, covering the obligations of states under both treaties and customary international law. Part II examines how different courts have addressed requirements to investigate violations of human rights instruments within the context of armed conflicts and the lex specialis of IHL, […]

By Daphne Barak-Erez and David Scharia – Click here to view the full text of the Article In the recent case of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a criminal prohibition on advocacy carried out in coordination with, or at the direction of, a foreign terrorist organization is constitutionally permissible: it is not tantamount to an unconstitutional infringement of freedom of speech. This Article aims to understand both the decision itself and its implications in the context of the global effort to define the limits of speech that aims to support or promote terrorism.

The Extraordinary Rendition Of A Terror Suspect In Italy, the NATO SOFA, and Human Rights By Chris Jenks* and Eric Talbot Jensen** – Click here to download the published PDF version I.  Introduction On February 12, 2003, at around 12:30 p.m., Mr. Osama Mustafa Nasr (Abu Omar) was walking from his house in Milan to the local mosque.  He was stopped by a plain-clothes carabiniere (Italian military police officer) who asked for his documents.  While he was searching for his refugee passport, he was immobilized and put into a white van by more plain-clothes officers, at least some of whom

Imagine that the U.S. intelligence services obtain reliable information that a known individual is plotting a terrorist attack against the United States. The individual is outside the United States, in a country where law and order are weak and unreliable.

By Scott J. Glick* – Click here for the published PDF version In 2006, Congress enacted two potentially significant restrictions on the government’s ability to collect foreign intelligence information pursuant to FISA.  Against the backdrop of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (Court of Review) decision that arguably reached an erroneous conclusion about the meaning and scope of FISA’s significant purpose requirement, Congress let stand two restrictions that the Court of Review had placed on the government’s use of FISA.  First, the Court of Review held that if the government’s primary purpose was to prosecute, then the government could

By Michael Schmitt – Click here to download the published PDF version I.  Introduction In 2003, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), in cooperation with the T.M.C. Asser Institute, launched a major research effort to explore the concept of “direct participation by civilians in hostilities” (DPH Project).[1] The goal was to provide greater clarity regarding the international humanitarian law (IHL) governing the loss of protection from attack when civilians involve themselves in armed conflict.  Approximately forty eminent international law experts, including government attorneys, military officers, representatives of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and academics, participated in their personal capacity in