The Human Face of Permanent Climate-Induced Displacement

Climate change is predicted to lead to mass displacement, since the land where millions of people currently live will be, at some point, covered with water. For some populations, this will mean to be permanently displaced to a different country because the territory that their sovereign nations occupy will disappear. The most well‐known cases involve the citizens of Vanuatu, Kiribati, Tuvalu, and the Maldives. As the negative impact of climate change becomes clearer and closer in time, policy solutions to this problem are discussed. In this paper, I look at previous cases of populations’ displacement to identify policy lessons that may be applicable to climate-driven displacement. I thus present four case—involving populations in China, Kosovo, New Orleans and the island of Bikini, and determine the lessons that can be learned, how they can be applied to the inevitable displacement looming in the Pacific Ocean, and suggest policy recommendations. I chose to look at this issue from the perspective of the displaced and suggest recommendations that take into consideration the hardships associated with displacement. I think of this as giving a “human face” to the problem and hope that the policy recommendations will make displacement a little bit easier for the displaced

The Enduring Challenge: Self Determination and Ethnic Conflict in the 21st Century

Explores the ways in which ethnic conflicts have had a major impact on international security and U.S. foreign policy since the end of the Cold War, and looks at the role of international organizations and NGOs in addressing self-determination challenges

Interrogation or Experimentation? Assessing Non-Consensual Human Experimentation During the War on Terror

The prohibition against non-consensual human experimentation has long been considered sacrosanct. It traces its legal roots to the Nuremberg trials although the ethical foundations dig much deeper. It prohibits all forms of medical and scientific experimentation on non-consenting individuals. The prohibition against non-consensual human experimentation is now well established in both national and international law. Despite its status as a fundamental and non-derogable norm, the prohibition against non-consensual human experimentation was called into question during the War on Terror by the CIA’s treatment of “high-value detainees.” Seeking to acquire actionable intelligence, the CIA tested the “theory of learned helplessness” on these detainees by subjecting them to a series of enhanced interrogation techniques. This Article revisits the prohibition against non-consensual human experimentation to determine whether the CIA’s treatment of detainees violated international law. It examines the historical record that gave rise to the prohibition and its eventual codification in international law. It then considers the application of this norm to the CIA’s treatment of high-value detainees by examining Salim v. Mitchell , a lawsuit brought by detainees who were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques. This Article concludes that the CIA breached the prohibition against non-consensual human experimentation when it conducted systematic studies on these detainees to validate the theory of learned helplessness

A Prescription for Perilous Times (Reviewing Geoffrey R. Stone, Perilous Times: Free Speech in War Time From the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism (2004))

In this Essay, I argue that Professor Stone has written an important work of constitutional history, not only because of what he has to say, but also because of the time in which he says it. The tragedy of September 11, 2001 generated reactions by every branch of the federal government, as well as by the general public and a host of public-regarding institutions in American society. Each of those reactions has implicated the balance between liberty and security that historically has been tested in this country during times of crisis. \u27Perilous Times\u27 lucidly conveys the nation\u27s accumulated lessons of experience from the Sedition Act of 1798 to recent events in the war on terrorism, thereby arming Americans with knowledge necessary to grapple successfully with the challenges of our own time. Professor Stone, in other words, offers not just a bracing reminder of historic threats to America\u27s celebrated civil liberties tradition, but also a constitutional compass for current use in a world that has changed in important respects yet remains much the same. Perilous Times tells a story with a balanced, two-fold moral that is sobering yet ultimately affirming of America\u27s capacity to learn from past mistakes and make moral and constitutional progress. In six historical periods, Professor Stone finds that the federal government and the citizenry overreacted, needlessly sacrificing civil liberties at the altar of perceived threats to national security. But in each period, there were heroes-politicians, jurists, journalists, and political dissenters of lower station and great courage-who realized the country was betraying the principles to which it aspires and who summoned the fortitude to speak out. After each episode, moreover, some learning took place; our country returned to a more liberty-friendly equilibrium, with the historical trend pointing in the direction of greater protection of civil liberties. Yet because today\u27s repression does not tend to be the same as yesterday\u27s, our country has difficulty learning the more general lesson that crises lead to repression. By clearly identifying a disturbing historical pattern in which current governmental conduct is implicated, Professor Stone contributes to the project of preventing future repression. I evaluate Perilous Times by asking three questions. First, does the book adequately defend its conclusion that unjustified deprivations of civil liberties have taken place throughout American history during wartime? Second, are Professor Stone\u27s reform proposals likely to succeed by facilitating a more appropriate balance between liberty and security in times of crisis? Third, does Perilous Times offer a useful framework for assessing government actions since September 11? I argue that Perilous Times is excellent in its descriptions and normative assessments of the relevant history, notwithstanding some relatively modest concerns about the empirical sample from which the book draws its conclusions. The lessons of history it develops, I further contend, remain highly relevant in a post-September 11 world. I submit that the book\u27s proposals for reform, however, are less strong. This vulnerability is due not to any failing on Professor Stone\u27s part, but rather to how challenging it proves to significantly reduce the likelihood of repression in times of crisis. Without a further transformation of social values in America, it is difficult to see how his mechanisms will do much to alleviate the pressures he identifies as having caused past excesses. Yet I conclude that this sobering reality should not lead us to lose sight of the intellectual and civic achievement embodied in Perilous Times. Americans often fail to see how current governmental conduct continues a disturbing historical pattern. Ultimately, Professor Stone\u27s greatest contribution in helping to prevent future repression lies in his identification of that trend. Perilous Times equips Americans to integrate the judgments of the court of history, thereby rendering our national community somewhat better able to resist the repressive urge

Where Liberty Lies: Civil Society and Individual Rights After 9/11

Had someone told you, on September 11, 2001, that the United States would not be able to do whatever it wanted in response to the terrorist attacks of that day, you might well have questioned their sanity. The United States was the most powerful country in the world, and had the world’s sympathy in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. Who would stop it? Al Qaeda had few friends beyond the Taliban. As a historical matter, Congress and the courts had virtually always deferred to the executive in such times of crisis. And the American polity was unlikely to object to measures that sacrificed the rights of others—Arabs and Muslims, and especially Arab and Muslim foreigners—for Americans’ security. Yet perhaps the most important and surprising lesson of the past decade is that constitutional and human rights, which seemed so vulnerable in the attacks’ aftermath, proved far more resilient than many would have predicted. President George W. Bush’s administration initially chafed at the constraints of constitutional, statutory, and international law, which it treated as inconvenient obstacles on the path to security. The administration acted as if no one would dare to—or could effectively—check it. But in time, the executive branch of the most powerful nation in the world was compelled to adapt its response to legal demands. Equally surprising is that these restraints for the most part were imposed not by the formal mechanisms of checks and balances, but by more informal influences, often sparked by efforts of civil society organizations that advocated, educated, organized, demonstrated, and litigated for constitutional and human rights. The American constitutional system is traditionally understood to rely on the separation of powers and judicial review to protect liberty and impose legal restrictions on government officials. After September 11, however, as in other periods of crisis in American history, all three branches were often compromised in their commitments to liberty, equality, dignity, fair process, and the “rule of law.” By contrast, civil society groups dedicated to constitutional and rule-of-law values, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the American Bar Association, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, the Constitution Project, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, and the Council on American Islamic Relations, consistently defended constitutional and human rights—and in so doing reinforced the checking function of constitutional and international law. They issued reports identifying and condemning lawless ventures; provided material and sources to the media to help spread the word; filed lawsuits in domestic and international fora challenging allegedly illegal initiatives; organized and educated the public about the importance of adhering to constitutional and human rights commitments; testified in Congressional hearings on torture, illegal surveillance, and Guantánamo; and coordinated with foreign governments and international nongovernmental organizations to bring diplomatic pressure to bear on the United States to conform its actions to constitutional and international law. Scholars have long focused on the role constitutions and the formal structures of government that they create play in reinforcing commitments to long-term principles when ordinary political forces are inclined to seek shortcuts. The United States’ experience during the decade following September 11 suggests that this focus is incomplete; we should pay at least as much attention to the work civil society groups do to “enforce” constitutional rights. Much like a constitution itself, such groups stand for, and can shore up, commitments to principle when those commitments are most tested. And while we often speak metaphorically about a “living Constitution,” civil society groups are actually living embodiments of these commitments, comprised of human beings who have joined together out of a shared, lived dedication to constitutional and human rights principles. As such, they are well positioned to influence the polity’s and the government’s reactions in real time, and in crisis periods may be the only institutional counterforce to the impulse to sacrifice rights for security. In this article, I argue that a more robust understanding of how constitutions work must take into account what I call “civil society constitutionalism,” in which nongovernmental organizations advocate in multiple ways for adherence to the rule of law, in court and out, and in so doing, do much of the “work” of constitutionalism. That role is particularly important in periods of crisis, when neither the formal separation of powers nor the public at large are likely to perform much of a checking function. I argue that the Bush administration was compelled to curtail nearly all of its most aggressive initiatives, and not because a court ordered him to do so, Congress required him to do so, or the American public demanded such change. In the final section, I suggest that the role that civil society organizations committed to constitutional and human rights played in this period has lessons for constitutional theory, constitutional doctrine, and constitutional practice

Hostile Protected Persons or Extra-Conventional Persons: How Unlawful Combatants in the War on Terrorism Posed Extraordinary Challenges for Military Attorneys and Commanders

First, this Article reviews policymakers\u27 and commentators\u27 categorization of participants in Operation Enduring Freedom, the armed conflict in Afghanistan against al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. This Article concentrate specifically on the status of participants operating at the fringes of the categories of persons protected by the Geneva Conventions. It shows, for example, how al Qaeda and the Taliban fighters tested the bounds of the Conventions by employing methods of “warfare” which rendered them non-distinct and therefore made a determination of their status unclear. This Article demonstrates how policymakers and ultimately the U.S. President created a class of persons--so-called extra-conventional persons--who participated in hostilities yet failed to qualify for protection under any of the applicable Geneva Conventions. Second, this Article presents the training and education available to the judge advocates who faced these legal issues. it further presents perspectives on the law of war as it appeared from the resources, education, and training commonly available to deployed judge advocates. This Article ultimately concludes that international law and U.S. military doctrine classify many who participate in hostilities as “protected persons” under the Fourth Geneva Convention--a concept ultimately at odds with the determination made by U.S. policymakers.Third, and in concert with the two issues identified above, this Article describes the enormous challenges these issues created for U.S. military persons participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Specifically, it illustrates operational and legal challenges faced by military attorneys and the commanders they advised. It then explores legal issues that arose during the detention and occupation operations with respect to fighters associated with Saddam Fedayeen. Observing apparent similarities between Saddam Fedayeen and Taliban fighters earlier categorized as extra-conventional, this Article describes how, despite similarities in applicable law and attributes, judge advocates determined that these irregular fighters were protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention. It concludes that judge advocates dealt with these challenges responsibly, providing sound legal advice that balanced commanders\u27 mission requirements with the humanitarian spirit of the law of war

Transportation, Terrorism and Crime: Deterrence, Disruption and Resilience

Abstract: Terrorists likely have adopted vehicle ramming as a tactic because it can be carried out by an individual (or “lone wolf terrorist”), and because the skills required are minimal (e.g. the ability to drive a car and determine locations for creating maximum carnage). Studies of terrorist activities against transportation assets have been conducted to help law enforcement agencies prepare their communities, create mitigation measures, conduct effective surveillance and respond quickly to attacks. This study reviews current research on terrorist tactics against transportation assets, with an emphasis on vehicle ramming attacks. It evaluates some of the current attack strategies, and the possible mitigation or response tactics that may be effective in deterring attacks or saving lives in the event of an attack. It includes case studies that can be used as educational tools for understanding terrorist methodologies, as well as ordinary emergencies that might become a terrorist’s blueprint

Mental health services required after disasters: Learning from the lasting effects of disasters

Extent: 13p.Disasters test civil administrations’ and health services’ capacity to act in a flexible but well-coordinated manner because each disaster is unique and poses unusual challenges. The health services required differ markedly according to the nature of the disaster and the geographical spread of those affected. Epidemiology has shown that services need to be equipped to deal with major depressive disorder and grief, not just posttraumatic stress disorder, and not only for victims of the disaster itself but also the emergency service workers. The challenge is for specialist advisers to respect and understand the existing health care and support networks of those affected while also recognizing their limitations. In the initial aftermath of these events, a great deal of effort goes into the development of early support systems but the longer term needs of these populations are often underestimated. These services need to be structured, taking into account the pre-existing psychiatric morbidity within the community. Disasters are an opportunity for improving services for patients with posttraumatic psychopathology in general but can later be utilized for improving services for victims of more common traumas in modern society, such as accidents and interpersonal violence.A. C. McFarlane and Richard William

Higher Ground: A Hoosier Soldier\u27s Search for Religious Identity in the Korean War

This paper focuses on Private Joe Doe, a Hoosier soldier in the Korean War who struggled with the conflict between conservative Christian beliefs and modernity. The author reviewed 85 letters that Doe sent home to his mother, in addition to Private Doe’s mother’s memoirs and the evangelical literature that Doe encountered in his formative years. Although Doe had been socialized to believe that the church solved the most pressing problems, his experiences also underscored the power of modern science, New Deal programs, public education, and changing roles of women. This is a case study of a young Hoosier soldier’s search for religious identity