Geneva Conventions Part 3

 

APPLYING THE Rule of law IN THE WAR ON TERROR: AN EXAMINATION OF GUANTANAMO BAY THROUGH THE LENS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND THE Geneva Conventions
John R. Pariseault
Hastings International and Comparative Law Review
Volume 28, Number 3, Spring 2005 p.481

ASSESSING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S DETENTION POLICY FOR TALIBAN AND AL-QAEDA COMBATANTS AT GUANTANAMO BAY IN LIGHT OF DEVELOPING UNITED STATES CASE LAW AND International humanitarian law , INCLUDING THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS
Rui Wang
Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law
Volume 22, Number 2, Summer 2005 p.413

Attorney General Nominee’s Views on Compliance with U.S. Treaty Obligations, Torture, ProLaw Journal / Law Reviewol I to the Geneva Conventions, Revising the Geneva Conventions
American Journal of International Law
Volume 99, Number 2, April 2005 p.481

IN DEFENSE OF ALBERTO R. GONZALES AND THE 1949 GENEVA CONVENTIONS
John Cornyn
Texas Review of Law and Politics
Volume 9, Number 2, Spring 2005 p.213

A Response to John C. Yoo, “The Status of Soldiers and Terrorists under the Geneva Conventions”
Johannes van Aggelen
Chinese Journal of International Law
Volume 4, Number 1, June 2005 p.167-181

— 13. XII.03 — Opinion on the possible need for further development of the Geneva Conventions
Human Rights Law Journal
Volume 24, Number 9-12, December 2003 p.458

[Articles] The US Supreme Court’s ‘Enemy Combatant’ Decisions: A ‘Major Victory for the Rule of law ‘?
Moeckli, D.
Journal of Conflict and Security Law
Volume 10, Number 1, Spring 2005

In its recent judgments in Rumsfeld v Padilla, Hamdi v Rumsfeld and Rasul v Bush, the Supreme Court of the United States rejected the executive’s claim that it has the authority to incarcerate people suspected of terrorist connections without any judicial review. This article argues that, nevertheless, the suggestion that these decisions constitute a major setback for the US administration that will forever change the legal parameters of the ‘war on terror’ is misleading. For the court has upheld, in principle, the government’s power to designate terrorist suspects as ‘enemy combatants’ and to hold them without charging them with a criminal offence or according them prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Conventions. And it is exactly this creation of a special category of detainees, not envisaged by international law, that underlies the most important controversies surrounding the government’s treatment of suspected terrorists. Furthermore, the procedural rules suggested by the Supreme Court for the judicial review of ‘enemy combatant’ detentions are so deferential to the executive that they could render the review all but meaningless. Moreover, several controversial elements of the government’s post-September 11 detention policies are not addressed by the decisions at all. The Supreme Court, it is argued, has missed the chance to impose on the executive a clear framework, based on standards of international law, governing the detention of alleged terrorists.

Revising the Geneva Conventions to Regulate Force by and Against Terrorists: Four Fallacies
Ratner, Steven R.
IDF Law Review
2003 p.7

IS THE PRESIDENT BOUND BY THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS?
Derek Jinks & David Sloss
Cornell Law Review
Volume 90, Number 1, November 2004 p.97

The Abu Ghraib Misdeeds: Will There Be Justice in the Name of the Geneva Conventions?
Roberta Arnold
Journal of International Criminal Justice
Volume 2, Number 4, December 2004 p.999-1006

Unlawful Combatants and the Geneva Conventions
Jason Callen
Virginia Journal of International Law
Volume 44, Number 4, Summer 2004 p.1025

The Status of Soldiers and Terrorists under the Geneva Conventions
John C. Yoo
Chinese Journal of International Law
Volume 3, Number 1, 2004 p.135-150

The Politics of the Geneva Conventions: Disturbing Background to the ICC Debate
Jeremy Rabkin
Virginia Journal of International Law
Volume 44, Number 1, Fall 2003 p.169

Interesting Times for International humanitarian law : Challenges from the “War on Terror”
Gabor Rona
Fletcher Forum of World Affairs
Volume 27, Number 2, Summer/Fall 2003 p.55

International Humanitarian Law is fine-as long as it is appreciated for what it is rather than criticized for what it is not. Legal advisor to the International Committee of the Red Cross probes the idea of whether humanitarian law is applicable to the War on Terror and argues that the values of human security and the rule of law enshrined in the Geneva Conventions should be upheld.

Seminar on The 25th Anniversary of The Additional ProLaw Journal / Law Reviewols to The Geneva Conventions of 1949 – A Report
Ch. Benarji
Indian Journal of International Law
Volume 43, Number 1, January-March 2003 p.130

Individual Criminal Responsibility for Violations of Article 3 Common to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and of Additional ProLaw Journal / Law Reviewol II Thereto in the Case Law of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
Roman Boed
Criminal Law Forum
Volume 13, Number 3, September 2002 p.293-322

Applying the Geneva Conventions: Military Commissions, Armed Conflict, and Al-Qaeda
Alfred P. Rubin
Fletcher Forum of World Affairs
Volume 26, Number 1, Winter/Spring 2002 p.79

President George W. Bush’s executive order allowing the establishment of military c?mmissi?ns to try foreigners for acts of terrorism has come under severe criticism. What many have failed to realize is that a simpler solution to the problem exists.

 

Implementing Universal Jurisdiction Over Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions
Richard van Elst
Leiden Journal of International Law
Volume 13, Number 4, December 2000 p.815-854

Should India become a Party to 1977 ProLaw Journal / Law Reviewols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949? Report on a National Seminar
Shikhar Ranjan
Indian Journal of International Law
Volume 40, Number 2, April-June 2000 p.243

Author: international

Mentioned in these Entries

Attorney General, Geneva Conventions, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, International Humanitarian Law, International humanitarian law, Rule of law.