Authors

Lawfare: Preserving the Balance Between the Law and War

By Geoffrey S. Corn 29 Sep 2009 | World Politics Review The term "lawfare" is increasingly used to characterize the pervasive role of law in the conduct of war, but there is nothing new about the concept. The real question raised today is whether "lawfare" will come to define a fundamental distortion of the historic balance between the necessities of war and the need to protect the innocent.

Torture Memos: Careful What You Wish For

By Geoffrey S. Corn 29 Apr 2009 | World Politics Review The criminal prosecution of senior Bush administration officials for recently released legal opinions on "harsh" interrogation techniques would face a problematic irony: Any conviction would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that these lawyers acted with the specific intent to torture, as defined by the statute. And as the memos illustrate, this is not an easy burden to satisfy.

Yes, America, You're Still at War

By Geoffrey S. Corn 24 Mar 2009 | World Politics Review When President Barack Obama took office, a chorus of commentators began to demand the closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, in the hopes of ushering in a fundamental change in U.S. policy: ending the so called "war on terror" and the preventive-detention regime, exemplified by the facility, that it had spawned. Recent legal filings make it clear that no such about face is in the offing.

Boumediene v. Bush and the Role of the Courts in the War on Terror

By Geoffrey S. Corn 18 Jun 2008 | World Politics Review Exclusive In the wake of Boumediene v. Bush, a more robust judicial role in the process of establishing a legally acceptable definition of the critical term "enemy combatant" is now a certainty. After a six year saga of legal opinions, policy decisions, and ongoing detentions, the government might finally be forced by this opinion and continuing judicial oversight to clearly articulate and defend the rationale for the expansive application of the term "enemy combatant" that is at the heart of the concept of a Global War on Terror.

Battlefield Accountability for Contractors: At What Cost?

By Geoffrey S. Corn 04 Apr 2008 | World Politics Review Exclusive Something radical has begun in Iraq, but it has flown under the radar of the media and the public. For the first time since 1970, the U.S. Army is court-martialing a civilian; and not an American civilian, but a Canadian civilian. Charged with aggravated assault, this civilian contractor now faces trial by a military jury, in a courtroom presided over by a military judge, and without the benefit of indictment by a Grand Jury. Accountability for the misconduct he engaged in is important, but at what cost?

Law of War: U.S. Government in a Dilemma of its Own Making

By Geoffrey S. Corn 26 Mar 2008 | World Politics Review Exclusive The war on terror has produced a historically unprecedented degree of judicial oversight of wartime decisions. To date, these cases have produced a mixed bag of outcomes, sometimes favoring assertions of executive power but also rejecting the exploitation of the asserted "gap" in legal coverage. But it seems clear that much of the perceived necessity for judicial oversight of this war is a direct consequence of U.S. efforts to exclude most detainees from the protections that the law of war provides.

The Trial of Salim Hamdan: Santa Claus Pays an Early Visit to Guantanamo

By Geoffrey S. Corn 21 Dec 2007 | World Politics Review Exclusive This week, the military judge presiding over the trial of Salim Hamdan granted a defense request to afford Hamdan a status review in accordance with Article 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. In light of the determined efforts of the Bush Administration to exclude from the jurisdiction of the convention all detainees captured in the "Global War on Terror," this was a real bombshell, and is a gift to all future detainees that will by tried by the military commission.

Contractors, the Privatization of War, and Accountability

By Geoffrey S. Corn 05 Oct 2007 | World Politics Review Exclusive The intense political and media scrutiny directed towards Blackwater Inc. this week evokes the old Irish saying that "calm waters run deep, but the Devil lurks in the depths." During congressional hearings, the rock was lifted to reveal one of the most profound developments in the American way of war since perhaps the use of conscription during the Civil War: civilianization of the battlefield. This trend has produced two dilemmas, both of which are at the heart of what has been labeled "Blackwatergate."

The Time Has Come for a Modest U.S. Military Draft

By Geoffrey S. Corn 01 Dec 2006 | World Politics Review Exclusive This past week, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) once again dropped the "D" word into the midst of the political debate surrounding the war in Iraq. Although Rangel's proposal for a draft triggered a few days of political punditry on the subject, no one seriously expects a resurrection of military conscription. But why is the idea of a draft so pernicious? Perhaps the time has come for Americans to confront this question head on. Is it consistent with the notion of genuine democracy to wage a sustained war without exposing the people to even the risk of involuntary military service?

The Common Article 3 Debate: What's at Stake

By Geoffrey S. Corn 19 Sep 2006 | World Politics Review Exclusive So, what is all the fuss about these Geneva Conventions? Considering that the subject of compliance with these treaties not only led every Sunday morning weekly news program, but is also the cause of the so-called "rebellion" by a group of highly influential Republican Senators, many are no doubt asking this question. The answer is central to how the United States will frame the nature of the conflict we are struggling not only to win, but to understand.

War, Murder and the Military Justice System

By Geoffrey S. Corn 07 Sep 2006 | World Politics Review Exclusive This week, an officer responsible for investigating the killing of several Iraqi civilians by four U.S. soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division in Iraq recommended that they be charged with premeditated murder and face the death penalty. If these cases reach a military court room, they will no doubt trigger debate on the "justice" of trying American soldiers for their conduct in battle. Why should such cases be pursued? And why should the American people have confidence in the legitimacy of military justice?

Lebanon War Bolsters Emerging Law-of-War Consensus

By Geoffrey S. Corn 22 Aug 2006 | World Politics Review Exclusive As the proverbial dust settles over the battlefields of southern Lebanon, a major change in the landscape of legal regulation of warfare is taking hold. This change, first exposed by the military operations launched by the United States against Al Qaeda, has led to the widespread expectation that conflicts between states and transnational non-state entities must be governed by the laws of war, a body of international law historically applied to conflicts between states.