The End of Law: The ISIL Case Study for a Comprehensive Theory of Lawlessness

This Article has five parts. Part I sets out and adopts the basic premises of the jurisprudential perspective championed by Professor Reisman and sketches his argument that legal solutions can always be fashioned in a meaningful and realistic manner. Part II discusses the development of ISIL in the Middle East. Part III analyzes the lawlessness problem created by ISIL for the affected local communities and explains how loss of control, left unattended, transforms into a loss of authority of prescription by destroying the social fabric needed for legal processes to have meaning. Part IV develops how municipal lawlessness has a contagion effect on the international plane through what this Article calls the transnational transference of lawlessness by comparing international legal reactions to ISIL’s putative establishment of a caliphate in Syria and Iraq. Part V sketches how the contagion effect can be stopped by means of the diagnostic tools developed in Parts III and IV. The Article demonstrates that both public debate and scholarly engagement so far have focused on the wrong question: whether or how to use force to wrest control of territory from ISIL. Given the progression of lawlessness from loss of control to loss of authority mapped in Part III of the Article, this incorrect focus is understandable. But to be effective, the debate instead must focus directly on how authoritative decision-making processes can be rekindled and protected in Syria, Iraq, and beyond. These structures were degraded not just by ISIL, which may well be a symptom of failing authority structures rather than its proximate cause; in fact, these structures were sabotaged by Western and Ottoman colonial powers long before ISIL sought its opportunity on Arabian soil. Perhaps counter-intuitively, use of force that does not also address and re-strengthen the social fabric in the region could well be worse long-term than no use of force at all. Given the human toll in the region—and the role as other than an innocent bystander of Western powers—the normative end of law should inspire us towards more effective—and more authoritative—forms of intervention

A New Agenda for the Cultural Study of Law: Taking on the Technicalities

This article urges humanistic legal studies to take the technical dimensions of law as a central focus of inquiry. Using archival and ethnographic investigations into developments in American Conflict of Laws doctrines as an example, and building on insights in the anthropology of knowledge and in science and technology studies that focus on technical practices in scientific and engineering domains, it aims to show that the technologies of law - an ideology that law is a tool and an accompanying technical aesthetic of legal knowledge - are far more central and far more interesting dimensions of legal practice than humanists have often conceded. The article\u27s concrete focus is the nature of relations of means and ends in the Realist Revolution, as exemplified by the field of Conflicts, and the quiet but fundamental transformation of the character of those relations in mid and late-twentieth century legal knowledge

The performance of global democracy : parody and/as the political

The article develops a critical analysis of the debate on global democracy. Departing from common post-structural IR critiques of global democracy as (merely) a metaphor of escape that entrenches many of the sovereign logics it claims to contest, we explore what it would mean to engage the discourse of global democracy as an ongoing performative practice. After briefly outlining the relative positions of liberal reformist and cosmopolitan democrats – we argue that more attention can/should be paid to the ontopolitical foundations of global democracy. Drawing from William Connolly and Judith Butler, it is argued that fundamental (democratic) limits of the discourse are overlooked/re-produced, and even in the more ambitious cosmopolitan positions. Ontopolitical closures in relation to a problematic global scale and the universal assumption of individual agency/rights highlight the necessity of democratising ‘actually existing’ discourses of global democracy. We explore these ideas via a discussion of the cultural governance of global trade and resistance to it, especially via the activities of a UK based anarchist group called The Space Hijackers. By deploying parody the Space Hijackers can contribute to the debate on global democracy by provoking reflection upon fundamental assumptions about globalisation and ethics in everyday situations. They therefore problematise and subvert the problematic subjectivity of the ‘global-individual’ in a manner that might (but does not necessarily) allow for the imagination of alternative possibilities. The importance of this argument is that it resists the tendency of poststructural scepticism with regard to ethical discourses of global democracy, while retaining what is so promising: a turn towards singularity and imagination. Parody does not solve all problems, what could? But it does offer a modality within which subjects can imagine and act creatively with regards to the everyday closures of global democrac

Implications of Two Peer Nuclear-Armed Adversaries on U.S. Deterrence Strategy and the Future of Arms Control Agreements

NPS NRP Technical ReportThis research will examine the implications of the rise of two near-peer, nuclear-armed adversaries for the United States, with an emphasis on the Russian role as a pivotal player in this rising configuration. The focus on Russia will account for the fact that while China's rise makes it potentially the most significant long-term threat, the current scale of Russia's arsenal and its strategic posture make it the most immediate existential threat to the United States and its allies, as well as a key potential spoiler in the U.S. strategic pivot to the Indo-Pacific. The research will proceed along three parallel tracks. The first track will analyze how the different motivations and capabilities of Russia and China to challenge the United States structures their incentives for strategic cooperation, and will review the key debates among Russian elites on these topics. The second part will analyze Russian elite perceptions of the opportunities and limits of cooperation with China in boosting each other's strategic capabilities and their employment strategies. The third track of the research will examine the role of arms control and confidence-building measures in the emerging trilateral context, with the United States facing two near-peer adversaries. This research will be conducted through a combined team effort of subject-matter experts on Russian, U.S., NATO, and Chinese strategic doctrines, capabilities, and behavior. The researchers will perform a rigorous analysis of the debates in the Russian literature, complementing and contextualizing this information through discussions with subject matter experts in Washington, USSTRATCOM, NATO Headquarters, SHAPE Headquarters, and in key European allies. The final report will provide a combined analytical assessment on the topic, and discuss the implications for the USN, DoD, and U.S. national security more broadly.N3/N5 - Plans & StrategyThis research is supported by funding from the Naval Postgraduate School, Naval Research Program (PE 0605853N/2098). https://nps.edu/nrpChief of Naval Operations (CNO)Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited.

Does Dewey have an “epistemic argument” for democracy?

The analysis and defence of democracy on the grounds of its epistemic powers is now a well-established, if contentious, area of theoretical and empirical research. This article reconstructs a distinctive and systematic epistemic account of democracy from Dewey's writings. Running like a thread through this account is a critical analysis of the distortion of hierarchy and class division on social knowledge, which Dewey believes democracy can counteract. The article goes on to argue that Dewey’s account has the resources to defuse at least some important forms of the broader charges of instrumentalism and depoliticization that are directed at the epistemic project. The gloomy conviction of the stratified character of capitalist societies and the conflictual character of their politics shapes Dewey’s view of political agency, and this article outlines how this epistemic conception of democracy is deployed as a critical standard for judging and transforming existing political forms but also serves as a line of defence for democratic political forms against violent and authoritarian alternatives

Henry Wells Lawrence Memorial Lectures, Number 3

Third volume of addresses given as part of a lecture series in honor of Connecticut College Professor of History, Henry Wells Lawrence. Edited by Chester McA. Destler. Contents are as follows: The Reasons for the Failure of the Paris Peace Settlement, Hajo Holborn, Professor of History, Yale University From Individualism to Collectivism in American Land Policy, Paul Wallace Gates, Professor of History, Cornell University Representative Institutions in England and Europe in the Fifteenth Century in Relation to Later Developments, Helen Maud Cam, Professor of History, Radcliffe College, Harvard Universityhttps://digitalcommons.conncoll.edu/ccbooks/1009/thumbnail.jp

The Supremacy Clause as Structural Safeguard of Federalism: State Judges and International Law in the Post-Erie Era

Against a backdrop of state constitutional and legislative initiatives aimed at limiting judicial use of international law, this Article argues that state judges have, by and large, interpreted treaties and customary international law so as to narrow their effect on state law-making prerogatives. Where state judges have used international law more liberally, they have done so to give effect to state executive and legislative objectives. Not only does this thesis suggest that the trend among state legislatures to limit state judges\u27 use of international law is self-defeating, it also gives substance to a relatively unexplored structural safeguard of federalism: state judges\u27 authority under the Supremacy Clause to harmonize treaties and customary international law with state constitutional, legislative, and common law, and to influence federal jurisprudence on the scope and effect of binding international law. The Supremacy Clause empowers state judges to adapt international law to maximize benefits for--and minimize disruptions to--state policy objectives. As more areas of traditional state authority are displaced by international law, state judicial management of international law may be the strongest structural protection for state interests

Stare Decisis and Constitutional Text

Almost everyone acknowledges that stare decisis should play a significant role when the Supreme Court of the United States resolves constitutional cases. Yet the academic and judicial rationales for this practice tend to rely on naked consequentialist considerations, and make only passing efforts to square the Court\u27s stare decisis doctrines with the language of the Constitution. This Article offers a qualified defense of constitutional stare decisis that rests exclusively on constitutional text. It aims to broaden the overlapping consensus of interpretive theories that can support a role for constitutional stare decisis, but to do this it must narrow the circumstances in which stare decisis can be applied