Topic Needed: International Law Research Paper
I'm looking for a topic for a legal research paper.
Background:
I am on an extended vacation from the Army and spending much of my leisure time pursuing a law degree. Part of any law student's education involves writing a legal research paper "of publishable quality." The topic is pretty wide open. I would prefer to research an issue that concerns international law (but that's only a preference, not a requirement) that has relevance to our current operations, whether it pertains to detainees, cross-border attacks, our ability conduct certain types of operations (kinetic, cyber, etc). It simply needs to be something narrow enough for one paper and something that I am able to wrap my brain around.
My question:
Is anyone aware of some contested legal issue or unanswered question that currently influences, or will likely soon influence, our operations in Iraq/Syria/Iran or Afghanistan/Pakistan? (I would prefer to keep it in CENTCOM+Pakistan, since I at least have some familiarity with the OE).
Just to clarify:
In light of issues regarding Gitmo and so-called "extraordinary rendition," my question looking for a topic may sound like a no-brainer, but it's not. The issue of Gitmo is too big for a 60-page paper and probably beyond my level of expertise. I suspect that the issue of so-called "extraordinary rendition" is also too large and above my head. I need something narrower - perhaps some contention regarding cross-border UAV attacks? Also, keep in mind that if classified information is essential - or extremely helpful - in understanding the issue, then it's probably not a good topic for me, since any conclusion that I draw will only be read by people who do not have access to that information and thus they may not understand the context.
One possible example:
On my last deployment to Iraq, I spent time on staff as an IO planner. I was shocked at how often we ran into a legal issue in regard to various PSYOP tasks that we wanted to do, but couldn't (especially certain print products - WTF?). It was, as I recall, a fairly narrow issue - and pretty hotly contested among the JAGs. I read an email full of legal mumbo jumbo that stretched out for 20 pages with JAGs at all echelons arguing every which way on the issue. Unfortunately, all of that was on SIPR, so I have no idea if the issue actually was classified or if it was simply being discussed via SIPR because that was how we conducted business. Also, having zero legal education at that time, I no longer recall what the legal obstacle(s) was/were or the origin. Worse yet, I don't know whether, or how, I could ask about them outside of a SCIF because I have no idea what the classification level is and I don't want to blab details of something that is classified.
Technically, I don't need to finish this paper until graduation (two years from now), but I'd prefer to start sooner rather than later. Even if you don't know the legalese, a simple issue that you've encountered would be a good start. For example, "our JAG says we can't do XYZ and gave us some BS reason for it - what gives?"
The best idea would be one that arises repeatedly, that the JAGs disagree on, and that really annoys the guys in the S3/J3/G3 shop(s) because it prevents them from doing some tactical/operational task that they want to do.
Any ideas would be appreciated.
Trying to explain my thoughts
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Schmedlap
I get the feeling that I know where you're going, but I'm not sure. Could you expand upon that?
In the West the law underpins our actions I am not convinced in the AOR legal norms have the same value. State power can appear un-restricted, e.g. in Pakistan ISI's use of executive power to detain hundreds of opponents. As we rely on law and potential partners may not this can impair co-operation. How can Western notions adjust to the AOR environment? SSR often refers to changing the legal structure etc.
Just some morning thoughts.
davidbfpo
International Law - Not/Is
There is a significant body of international law out in the real world composed of several components: (1) customary IL - probably the most effective, while there is no enforcement mechanism nearly all obey because it is in their interest to do so; (2) treaty law - applicable to all who are party to a treaty. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is particularly useful here as a dispute settlement mechanism that the parties to the treaty have previously accepted. similar dispute settlement mechanisms operate in the WTO; (3) Law based on resolutions by the UN Security Council - ad hoc directives that are as effective as the ad hoc enforcement mechanisms created by the UNSC. UN Command Korea has been an effective enforcement mechanism; MNUSTAH in Haiti has been moderately effective while the sanctions regimes for N. korea and Iran have failed. The final component is the International Criminal Court (ICC) established by treaty (Rome Convention) that clearly applies to all states that ratified the treaty. However, the statute of the ICC claims jurisdiction over individuals from states that are not party to the treaty. Similarly, some states - Spain and Belgium in particular - claim universal jurisdiction with respect to some crimes. The US Congress has rejected such claims by both the ICC and states.
Cheers
JohnT
So, we all agree that IL is different...
but, it is a different kind of law.:rolleyes:
I should add that ICJ jurisdiction can be revoked (as the US did in the Nicaraguan harbor mining case in the 80s). So, the ICJ satute is a pretty weak reed, however, it is useful when the parties to a dispute want a settlement. The WTO actually is a much more powerful mechanism than any international court since the sanctions it delivers for a trade violation are self-executing (or rather executed by the aggrieved party with the approval and support of most if not all of its trading partners).
The UNSC does carry out the legislative function in IL as do treaty negotiators and ratifiers. Both are limited to what states are willing to execute. Case in point: UNSC Resolution directing Saddam to vacate Kuwait or else and authorizing the US to form and lead a coalition of military forces to drive him out. Legislation turned over to an Executive with teeth.