Nuclear Smuggling as an International Crime

In the chaotic post-Cold War world, international cooperation is increasingly needed to detect and punish those who aid the spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. The proliferation of these weapons is a threat to the security of all states, except for a few rogues such as Iraq and North Korea; all other states have a common interest in punishing anyone who would assist the rogue states to acquire highly destructive weaponry. It would be reasonable to assume, therefore, that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is widely regarded as an international crime, like piracy, war crimes or aircraft hijacking

Additional Protocol I: A Military View

This paper is intended to analyze Additional Protocol I from a military perspective. More specifically, it presents the views of a United States military officer (albeit an officer who is also a lawyer) on the Protocol. To begin with, the Protocol, if ratified by the United States, would be taken seriously by our armed forces. It is United States policy to comply with the law of war in the conduct of military operations, and this body of law is regularly applied in American military courts. During the war in Southeast Asia, for example, 36 members of the U.S. Army were tried by courts-martial for violations of the law of war. It should be expected, then, that if the United States were to ratify the Protocol, that document would have a major impact on the conduct of the armed forces in war. It is not realistic to assume that the United States could ratify the Protocol, for whatever diplomatic and political benefits that might entail, and that its armed forces could simply ignore any inconvenient provisions of the Protocol in practice

Act of Justice: Lincoln\u27s Emancipation Proclamation and the Law of War

In his first inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln declared that as president he would “have no lawful right” to interfere with the institution of slavery. Yet less than two years later, he issued a proclamation intended to free all slaves throughout the Confederate states. When critics challenged the constitutional soundness of the act, Lincoln asserted that he was endowed “with the law of war in time of war”. This book contends Lincoln was no reluctant emancipator; he wrote a truly radical document that treated Confederate slaves as an oppressed people rather than merely as enemy property. In this respect, Lincoln\u27s proclamation anticipated the intellectual warfare tactics of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.https://uknowledge.uky.edu/upk_united_states_history/1173/thumbnail.jp

Lincoln on Trial: Southern Civilians and the Law of War

In light of recent controversies and legal actions related to America\u27s treatment of enemy prisoners in the Middle East and Guantánamo Bay, the regulation of government during wartime has become a volatile issue on the global scene. By today\u27s standards, Abraham Lincoln\u27s adherence to the laws of war could be considered questionable, and his critics, past and present, have not hesitated to charge that he was a war criminal. This book conducts an extensive analysis of Lincoln\u27s leadership throughout the Civil War as he struggled to balance his own humanity against the demands of his generals. The author specifically scrutinizes Lincoln\u27s conduct toward Southerners in light of the international legal standards of his time as the president wrestled with issues that included bombardment of cities, collateral damage to civilians, seizure and destruction of property, forced relocation, and the slaughter of hostages. The book investigates a wide range of historical materials from accounts of the Dahlgren raid to the voices of Southern civilians who bore the brunt of extensive wartime destruction. Through analysis of both historic and modern standards of behavior in times of war, a sobering yet sympathetic portrait of one of America\u27s most revered presidents emerges.https://uknowledge.uky.edu/upk_united_states_history/1178/thumbnail.jp