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.
Most scholars who have tackled the internet “kill switch” subject come to a rather hasty conclusion that the President has the authority to shut down the internet under his emergency powers by invoking section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934 (codified as 47 U.S.C. § 606).
Over the years, this supposition has been debated on the fringes. Laura B. West’s article adds to that debate, brings it front and center, and argues that the current legal authorities are wholly inadequate to address the possible need to quarantine, isolate, or shutdown computers or portions of the internet or networks within the United States in a time of emergency caused by a massive cyber-attack.
Even if current domestic authorities can withstand the policy and legal scrutiny, the uncertainty and potency surrounding such authorities is surely enough to warrant new legislation that can provide “clear guidance and an enhanced ability to rapidly execute national level decisions for response options to sophisticated attack.” Accordingly, the time is now to rethink executive cyber emergency powers before there is a true need to build cyber walls.
Subterranean operations have been an aspect of warfare since the beginning of recorded history. No longer just the complex tunnel networks facing U.S. forces during the Vietnam conflict, in today’s modern society, infrastructure to support megacities such as subway systems and sewers provide a third dimension for military planners to consider in conflicts.
The need to neutralize such threats is highlighted by Michael Meier as he explores the lawful measures that can be taken to conduct these operations. Meier’s contribution to this understudied subject first sets the stage by reviewing the subterranean domain, then looks at applicable law for subterranean operations, and then finally applies the law to the various methods for neutralizing and destroying tunnels and other subterranean systems.
This overarching summation of the ways to neutralize subterranean threats highlights the extent to which the legal issues in particular require careful consideration by commanders and legal advisors.