Warfare has transformed in the modern age from traditional warfare to more states engaging in non-international armed conflict, like the so called “war on terror.” However, the United States adheres to a standard regarding the end of non-international armed conflicts that deviates from the various approaches of international law practitioners and scholars.
In this article, Christian Schaller both questions the U.S. policy and argues it lacks clarity and transparency while also acknowledging the power it gives decision makers in combating terror, a strategy that more states have come to appreciate.
Legal analysis of the now much maligned “war on terror” has been a growth industry since the events of September 11, 2001. Despite this, how best to respond to and regulate terrorism remains a contested debate intellectually and practically. This article dives into that empirical gap by providing unique data on the operation of detention, arrest, and trial regimes created to counter and manage terrorism in the United Kingdom.
Outsourcing intelligence, while not a recent phenomenon, has become more commonplace in the face of increased operations and fiscal pressure since the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. While outsourcing has many benefits, it also brings certain general difficulties. As outsourcing decisions continue, it is critical that lawmakers understand the policy and legal implications of such choices.
Outsourcing Intelligence Analysis: Legal and Policy Risk