Ungoverned Spaces, Transnational Crime, and the Prohibition on Extraterritorial Enforcement Jurisdiction in International Law

This Article explicates the international legal framework governing State action against transnational crime; it also explores the disparity in what international law permits military actors to do in situations of armed conflict versus what actions civilians may undertake in the course of extraterritorial law enforcement operations. This Article argues that the trend of militarization in the U.S. approach to transnational crime law is, in part, a function of this legal disparity and that this trend could be reversed a degree if international law recognized a greater degree of flexibility for certain limited categories of extraterritorial law enforcement actions by civilian entities. To that end, it is argued that permitting such an exception would simultaneously promote 1) policies of refocusing the military on war-fighting by limiting its role in combating transnational crime and 2) rights-based approaches and government transparency by addressing transnational criminality in a way that comports with constitutional due process and international human rights norms. Otherwise stated, permitting greater latitude in the international legal framework for extraterritorial law enforcement activities conducted by civilians—especially for those activities occurring in areas where there is effectively no sovereign capable or willing to take action—would benefit military readiness while contemporaneously promoting human rights and the rule of law

Ungoverned Spaces, Transnational Crime, and the Prohibition on Extraterritorial Enforcement Jurisdiction in International Law

This Article explicates the international legal framework governing State action against transnational crime; it also explores the disparity in what international law permits military actors to do in situations of armed conflict versus what actions civilians may undertake in the course of extraterritorial law enforcement operations. This Article argues that the trend of militarization in the U.S. approach to transnational crime law is, in part, a function of this legal disparity and that this trend could be reversed a degree if international law recognized a greater degree of flexibility for certain limited categories of extraterritorial law enforcement actions by civilian entities. To that end, it is argued that permitting such an exception would simultaneously promote 1) policies of refocusing the military on war-fighting by limiting its role in combating transnational crime and 2) rights-based approaches and government transparency by addressing transnational criminality in a way that comports with constitutional due process and international human rights norms. Otherwise stated, permitting greater latitude in the international legal framework for extraterritorial law enforcement activities conducted by civilians—especially for those activities occurring in areas where there is effectively no sovereign capable or willing to take action—would benefit military readiness while contemporaneously promoting human rights and the rule of law

The Civil Codes of Libya and Syria: Hybridity, Durability, and Post-Revolution Viability in the Aftermath of the Arab Spring

The Arab Spring sent shockwaves through the political landscape of the Middle East and North Africa and upended long-standing authoritarian regimes throughout the region in rapid succession. Among the many countries touched by the Arab Spring, Libya and Syria have been among the most profoundly impacted, experiencing institutional deficits that complicate efforts to resolve ongoing conflicts and now threaten regional stability. The effects of such instability also pose a threat to the international community. In order to transition from conflict to peace and sustainable development in Libya and Syria, however, international actors will need to make concerted efforts at rebuilding the architecture of governance, a process which entails restoration of rule of law, dispute resolution, and core government functions. Such a process necessarily entails engagement with the civil law systems in force in these countries. This Article, therefore, explores the structure and substance of the Libyan Civil Code and the Syrian Civil Code, with special attention given to two of the most critical aspects of civil law vis-à-vis post-conflict reconstruction: The way each civil code addresses the formation of obligations and the regulation of property rights. This Article explicates the formal rules that: (1) regulate the legal affairs of citizens in those countries; (2) notes the applicability of those laws to post-revolution problems; (3) explores those elements and aspects of the Libyan and Syrian civil codes which have made them such durable legal institutions; (4) and assesses their ongoing, post-revolution viability

Non-State Armed Groups and the Role of Transnational Criminal Law During Armed Conflict

With the ascendance of the terrorist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the international community has struggled to adapt to the new international security context. Among the challenges that are currently being confronted are questions relating to how states may effectively facilitate international cooperation to counter ISIS (especially among countries in the Middle East and North Africa). Within this context, guidance from the United Nations on international cooperation posits that “[t]he universal counter-terrorism conventions and protocols do not apply in situations of armed conflict” – a legal position that would serve to stymie important cooperative efforts throughout the Middle East and which, if accepted as accurate, would prevent those states and others from addressing terrorism and many problems associated with non-state armed groups within a rule of law framework. This article, therefore, examines that U.N. legal position and, concomitantly, the unfrequented legal realm that lies at the crossroads of transnational criminal law and the law of armed conflict – providing an analysis of the emerging field of transnational criminal law and exploring how this burgeoning area of international law interacts with the law of armed conflict. This, in turn, permits an illuminative discussion of how various areas of international law interact with one another and how conflicts between competing areas of law may be resolved. Drawing on international legal sources, comparative law, and relevant civil law scholarship, the analysis demonstrates that the terrorism suppression conventions as well as other similar conventions – both multilateral and bilateral – remain operative and are not muted by the fact of an armed conflict. The United Nations should, therefore, correct its analysis so that governments in the Middle East, North Africa, and elsewhere have clear and accurate legal guidance with regard to the applicability of the terrorism suppression conventions during a time of armed conflict. Such conventions, after all, are what provide the legal bases which permit states to adopt hybrid approaches to hybrid threats such as ISIS – enabling all elements of state power (including both military and law enforcement capabilities) to address an increasingly complex and malevolent phenomenon within a rule of law framework