International Security Part 23

NATO’s New Paradigm for European Security: International Legal Issues in Ethnic Self-Determination
Francis A. Gabor
Suffolk Transnational Law Review
Volume 26, Number 1, Winter 2002 p.39

International Law-Protecting National Security Substantially Justifies U.S. Position and Makes an Award of Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act Unjust-Kiareldeen v. Ashcroft, 273 F.3d 542 (3d Cir. 2001).
Suffolk Transnational Law Review
Volume 26, Number 1, Winter 2002 p.231

The Legality and Constitutionality of the President’s Authority to Initiate an Invasion of Iraq – Committee on International Security Affairs of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York
Columbia Journal of Transnational Law
Volume 41, Number 1, 2002 p.15

HUMAN RIGHTS BEYOND THE WAR ON TERRORISM: EXTRADITION DEFENSES BASED ON PRISON CONDITIONS IN THE UNITED STATES
Daniel J. Sharfstein
Santa Clara Law Review
Volume 42, Number 4, 2002 p.1137

Because suspected terrorists risk facing capital punishment and military trials in the United States, the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits the extradition of the numerous prisoners currently in European custody who are suspected of planning and supporting attacks on the United States. The United States government has hinted at a willingness to bypass human rights concerns in at least some cases with assurances that suspected terrorists would not face the death penalty (or military tribunals). Nevertheless, these human rights obstacles to the extradition of suspected terrorists raise the possibility that, after more than a decade of negotiating around these obstacles, the United States might find itself unable to avoid reckoning with its non-conformity to international human rights norms. This article argues that despite the wealth of attention and speculation on the issue, an impasse between the United States and Europe over the non-extradition of suspected terrorists would not force the United States to internalize international human rights norms. To the contrary, when respect for human rights is framed in terms of leniency for terrorists, an extradition crisis may well lead the United States to step even farther out of the mainstream. For human rights activists seeking to push the United States towards internalizing international norms, the post-September 11 world requires a counter-intuitive calculation: the best outcomes will likely arise from cases outside the war on terrorism-and outside the death penalty context. Given that European countries thus far have put the protection of human rights over the serious security concerns raised by retaining custody of terrorists, European human rights tribunals may be particularly amenable to human rights defenses to extradition that, unlike defenses based on the death penalty, cannot be easily negotiated around with assurances from prosecutors. This article explores one such scenario: an extradition defense based on the fact that numerous prisons in the United States fall well below European standards for humane punishment. Such a defense would be potentially available to a large percentage of the extradition caseload, and two possible starting points for a litigation strategy to establish a prison conditions defense would be cases involving women and juveniles. These cases may not have the publicity value of cases involving suspected terrorists. Nevertheless, to the extent that the decisions of a European tribunal can ever influence the policies and practice of the United States, extradition defenses that are neither easily avoided nor politically explosive have the best chance of achieving meaningful results.

President Bush and the New U.S. National Security Strategy: The Continuing Relevance of the Legal Adviser and International Law
Edward McWhinney
Chinese Journal of International Law
Volume 1, Number 2, 2002 p.421-436

Author: international

Mentioned in these Entries

European Convention on Human Rights, International Security.