David Jonas and Dyllan Taxman’s insightful article— “JCP-No-Way: A Critique Of The Iran Nuclear Deal As A Non-Legally-Binding Political Commitment” —examines the Iran Nuclear Deal and its place in prior US arms treaties.
By positioning the Iran Nuclear Deal within the historical context of past agreements, American treaty-making, and national and international political norms, the authors conclude that the use of a non-binding political commitment to rein in Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions was both novel and inappropriate.
Instead, the authors argue that the Obama Administration should have used one of the available legally binding agreement options when negotiating with Iran. While the Trump Administration has since withdrawn from the Iran Nuclear Deal, this article highlights the importance of the US prioritizing future arms agreements that carry the force of law.
JCP No Way: A Critique of the Iran Nuclear Deal
MAJ Peter Combe argues that the covert action statute prohibits the Central Intelligence Agency from violating self-executing treaties to which the United States is party, as well as non-self-executing treaties and customary international law implemented by statute, but it provides domestic legal authority to violate non-self-executing treaties and customary international law that have not been implemented through legislation by Congress. This application of the covert action statute in practice is illuminated through a case study of the legal issues surrounding the Osama bin Laden raid.
In his essay on domestic surveillance, Philip Heymann explores the ways in which technological advancements have changed expectations of privacy and the legal protections against government intrusion. He outlines current constitutional and other legal protections, including evolving limitations on government activity that could be considered not a “search” under the Fourth Amendment. Heymann concludes with predictions about the future balance between citizens’ demands for privacy and the government need for information.
At JNSLP’s Feb. 11, 2015 symposium on “Trials and Terrorism: The Implications of Trying National Security Cases in Article III Courts,” an expert panel was convened to discuss trends in sentencing considerations in Article III terrorism prosecutions, and what the implications for these cases portend for american foreign policy. The panel consisted of a judge, a government official and former prosecutor, academics, and sentencing experts.
Meyer and Berenbaum analyze the national security policy challenge in balancing protections for Intelligence Community whistleblowers and the government’s legitimate need for secrecy in order to execute the federal intelligence and counterintelligence mission. It is that need for secrecy that creates the intellectual distance between the sovereign’s requirement for information regarding the performance of the federal intelligence and counterintelligence mission and the ability to conduct that mission.