DOCSLIB.ORG

Hamdan and Common Article 3: Did the Supreme Court Get It Right?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hamdan and Common Article 3: Did the Supreme Court Get It Right? Scholarship Repository University of Minnesota Law School Articles Faculty Scholarship 2007 Hamdan and Common Article 3: Did the Supreme Court Get It Right? Fionnuala Ní Aoláin University of Minnesota Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, Hamdan and Common Article 3: Did the Supreme Court Get It Right?, 91 MINN. L. REV. 1523 (2007), available at https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles/73. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in the Faculty Scholarship collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Article Hamdan and Common Article 3: Did the Supreme Court Get It Right? Fionnuala Ni Aolfiint Following the atrocities of September 11, 2001, the United States has activated a highly focused and high-profile set of le- gal, political, and military responses directed at perceived threats to its security at home and abroad. The legal responses to the "war on terror" have been extensive and central to this undertaking. In asserting the primacy of the executive's rights to unilaterally shape and define the contours of domestic and international law, the United States has invoked the ire of other states, international organizations, and critics at home. Common concerns include executive overreaching, the aban- donment of basic principles of due process, transparency, and executive accountability. Courts, both national and interna- tional, tend to give considerable deference to states when politi- cal or military crises are at hand. They usually avoid direct le- gal confrontation with executive and legislative assertions of authority and, if required to adjudicate on the validity of legal responses to a perceived threat, demonstrate timidity and cau- tion.1 The Hamdan v. Rumsfeld2 decision departs significantly from that general pattern, as do (to lesser degrees) the Su- t Professor of Law Transitional Justice Institute, University of Ulster, Dorsey & Whitney Chair in Law, University of Minnesota Law School. Thanks to Oren Gross for prompting my completion of the ideas contained in this Arti- cle. The thoughtful and incisive comments provided by Professor David Kretzmer were particularly helpful, as were those provided by Dr. Shane Darcy. My thanks to Adam Hansen for research assistance in the completion of this work. Copyright © 2007 by Fionnuala Ni Aoliin. 1. OREN GROSS & FIONNUALA Ni AOLAIN, LAW IN TIMES OF CRISIS: EMERGENCY POWERS IN THEORY AND PRACTICE 17-109 (2006). 2. 126 S. Ct. 2749 (2006). In Hamdan, "the Court concludes that peti- tioner may seek judicial enforcement of the provisions of the Geneva Conven- tions because 'they are . part of the law of war."' Id. at 2845 (Thomas, J., dissenting) (quoting id. at 2794 (majority opinion)). 1523 1524 MINNESOTA LAWREVIEW [91:1523 preme Court's earlier decisions in Rasul v. Bush3 and Hamdi v. 4 Rumsfeld. What is also significant about Hamdan is that interna- tional legal norms are central to its analytical core and to the conclusions the Court draws regarding the application of inter- national norms to state actions. Many scholars have examined the Court's conclusions in Hamdan and, in particular, its em- phasis on the role of the legislative branch in the decision- making process.5 This Article focuses its attention on the Court's assessment and subsequent application of international humanitarian law to the issues raised in Hamdan. In doing so, I start from the position that the majority was generally right in its instincts about the relevance of humanitarian law and the appropriateness of using humanitarian law norms to an- swer the questions posed in Hamdan. Nonetheless, I suggest that the Court's reasoning, in all the opinions offered, illus- trates a certain clumsiness of application and a dearth of ana- lytical rigor, leaving some very important legal matters unre- solved. Humanitarian law pervades the reasoning of the Hamdan opinions. Particularly striking are the Court's views on the en- forceability of the Geneva Conventions and specifically that of Common Article 3.6 Here the Court determined that the Ge- neva Conventions are incorporated by Article 21 of the Uniform 3. 542 U.S. 466 (2004). 4. 542 U.S. 507 (2004); see also Tim Otty & Ben Olbourne, The US Su- preme Court and the 'War on Terror Rasul and Hamdi, 5 EUR. HUM. RTS. L. REV. 558 (2004) (discussing the Court's opinions in Rasul and Hamdi). 5. See, e.g., Julian Ku & John Yoo, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld: The Functional Case for Foreign Affairs Deference to the Judicial Branch, 23 CONST. COM- MENT. 179 (2006); Cass R. Sunstein, Clear Statement Principles and National Security: Hamdan and Beyond, 2006 SUP. CT. REV. (forthcoming 2007), avail- able at http://ssrn.com/abstract=922406. 6. Common Article 3 refers to language in a specific provision-Article 3--common to all four Geneva Conventions. See Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field art. 3, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3114, 75 U.N.T.S. 31 [hereinafter Conven- tion I]; Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea art. 3, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3217, 75 U.N.T.S. 85 [hereinafter Convention II]; Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War art. 3, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3516, 75 U.N.T.S. 287 [hereinafter Convention III]; Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War art. 3, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3316, 75 U.N.T.S. 135 [hereinafter Convention IV]. 2007] HAMDAN AND COMMON ARTICLE 3 1525 Code of Military Justice into U.S. law. 7 Humanitarian law is also a source of considerable disagreement between the Jus- tices: on the enforceability of the Geneva Conventions, a five-to- two split; on the applicability of Common Article 3 to the war with al Qaeda, a five-to-two split; on the meaning of Common Article 3, a five-to-three split.8 This Article will explore what Hamdan tells us about Common Article 3, particularly where applied in the context of a contested war in which the legal status of the conflict has po- litical consequences. Specifically, the status of conflict is fun- damental to assessing both the legitimacy of the conflict and the methods and means used to fight the war. This exploration has two aspects. First, this Article will address whether the Court correctly identified and applied the Common Article 3 standard. Second, this Article will assess the Court's articula- tion of the boundaries of a treaty provision that states have his- torically applied inconsistently. I suggest that one important meta-narrative to this exploration is the idea that the Supreme Court's decision to apply Common Article 3 advances an anti- thesis to the rhetoric and policy of the current administration: that there is a "gap" in the law regulating state interface with other states and with non-state entities in the context of the war on terror.9 I. THE SCOPE OF COMMON ARTICLE 3 Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions was the first provision of an international agreement attempting to regulate the conduct of parties during a civil or internal con- 7. See Hamdan, 126 S. Ct. at 2794 (plurality opinion) ("[C]ompliance with the law of war is the condition upon which the authority set forth in Arti- cle 21 is granted."); id. at 2780-81 (holding that the phrase "law of war" incor- porates at least two sources of international law, the Hague Conventions and the 1949 Geneva Conventions). 8. See Hamdan, 126 S. Ct. 2749. As David Glazier notes, the Court "based its critical holding that [Common Article 3] applied on a simplistic dis- cussion occupying little more than a single page in a majority opinion that ran some forty pages overall." David Glazier, Full and Fair by What Measure?: In- ternational Law Standards Regulating Military Commission Procedure, 25 B.U. INT'L L.J. (forthcoming 2007) (manuscript at 3), available at http://ssrn .comabstract=896643. 9. I explore this idea further in a forthcoming article, Fionnuala Ni Aoliin, The No-Gaps Approach to Parallel Application in the Context of the War on Terror, 40 ISR. L. REV. (forthcoming June 2007). 1526 MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW [91:1523 flict.10 During all of the negotiations preceding the conclusion of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the substance of what might be contained in Common Article 3 was the most controversial." The committee charged with its formulation met twenty-five times before reaching an agreement on its content.12 As a lead- ing authority of the time, Col. Gerald Draper, correctly identi- fies: The Geneva Conventions, in their general approach to the method of protecting and securing good treatment for war victims, adopted the solution of eschewing any direct attempt to legislate for the conduct of actual hostilities. This solution has been brought into Article 3. The scheme of this article is to secure the minimum protection and hu- manitarian treatment for the victim of internal conflicts. At the same time the legal position of the Parties engaged in the internal conflict is left unaffected. The transactions of the Diplomatic Conference at Geneva in 1949 indicate that, without that express saving, Article 3 would not have been agreed.13 This compromise was intended therefore to ensure as much protection as possible to victims of non-international armed conflict, but sought entirely to avoid giving the parties involved in such conflicts legitimacy or status.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The-Legal-Status-Of-East-Jerusalem.Pdf
    December 2013 Written by: Adv. Yotam Ben-Hillel Cover photo: Bab al-Asbat (The Lion’s Gate) and the Old City of Jerusalem. (Photo by: JC Tordai, 2010) This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position or the official opinion of the European Union. The Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) is an independent, international humanitarian non- governmental organisation that provides assistance, protection and durable solutions to refugees and internally displaced persons worldwide. The author wishes to thank Adv. Emily Schaeffer for her insightful comments during the preparation of this study. 2 Table of Contents Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... 3 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 5 2. Background ............................................................................................................................ 6 3. Israeli Legislation Following the 1967 Occupation ............................................................ 8 3.1 Applying the Israeli law, jurisdiction and administration to East Jerusalem .................... 8 3.2 The Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel ................................................................... 10 4. The Status
    [Show full text]
  • Through No Fault of Their Own: Punitive House Demolitions During
    בצלם-מרכז המידע הישראלי לזכויות האדם בשטחים (ע.ר.) B'TSELEM - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories Information Sheet November 2004 Through No Fault of Their Own Punitive House Demolitions during the al - Aqsa Intifada Researched and written by Ronen Shnayderman Edited by Yehezkel Lein Data coordination by Suhair ‘Aabdi, Yael Handelsman, Sohad Sakalla Fieldwork by ‘Atef Abu a-Rob, Musa Abu Hashhash, Salma Dab’i, Iyad Haddad, Zaki Kahil, Mazen al-Majdalawi, ‘Abd al-Karim a-S’adi, Suha Zeyd Translated by Zvi Shulman Cover photo: Palestinian boy removes family possessions from the ruins of his home, in Bethlehem, which the IDF blew up on 15 June 2004 (Magnus Johansson, Reuters) ISSN 0792-8114 B ’ TSELEM Information Sheet November 2004 Through No Fault of Their Own Punitive House Demolitions during the al-Aqsa Intifada B’TSELEM - The Israeli Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories was founded in 1989 by a group of lawyers, authors, academics, journalists, and Knesset members. B’Tselem documents human rights abuses in the Occupied Territories and brings them to the attention of policymakers and the general public. Its data are based on independent fieldwork and research, official sources, the media, and data from Palestinian and Israeli human rights organizations. How long does it take to demolish a house? It takes a year to build it. Sometimes a hundred years. And there are some houses that have always been there. How long does it take to demolish a house? Less time than is spent thinking about whether it should have been demolished.
    [Show full text]
  • Prof. David Kretzmer
    David Kretzmer Curriculum vitae Personal Details Institutional Address: School of Law Sapir Academic College Home Address: 11 Aminadav Street Jerusalem Tel: 972-2-6729930; Fax: 972-1532-6729930; Mobile: 972-52-3836475 Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Present Positions Bruce W. Wayne Emeritus Professor of International Law, Hebrew University of Jerusalem; Professor of Law, Sapir Academic College Academic and Professional Qualifications LL.B., LL.M. (Jerusalem), Dr.Jur. (York University, Canada) Member, Israel Bar Honorary Degree Dr. Jur. Honoraris causa, Faculty of Law, Potsdam University, 2006 Positions in Hebrew University Louis Marshall Chair of Environmental Law (1975 – 2000) Vice-Dean for Student Affairs, Faculty of Law (1981-84) Member, Central Academic Committee (1991-1995) Member, Central Executive Committee (1995-1998) Chairperson, Central Disciplinary Tribunal for Academic Faculty (1993 – 2001) Academic Director, Center for Human Rights (1993-1997) Bruce W. Wayne Professor of International Law (2000-2006) Inter-University Positions Academic Director, Minerva Center for Human Rights, Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv University (1997 – 2000) International Positions UN Human Rights Committee: Member (1995 –2002) Special Rapporteur for New Communications (2000/ 2001) Vice-Chairperson (2001/2002). Commissioner, International Commission of Jurists (2003- 2018) Positions Held at Other Academic Institutions Fellow, Center for Advanced Engineering Studies, MIT, Cambridge,
    [Show full text]
  • The Legality and Materiality of the Israel/Palestine Separation Barrier
    Legalizing the Barrier: the Legality and Materiality of the Israel/Palestine Separation Barrier † YISHAI BLANK SUMMARY INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 310 I. THE HYBRID NATURE OF THE BARRIER: MATERIALITY AND LEGALITY ........ 312 A. The Barrier’s Materiality ............................................................................. 313 B. The Barrier’s Legality ................................................................................. 316 C. The Barrier’s Hybridity: Legality and Materiality, Old and New .......... 322 II. THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE BARRIER ............................................................... 325 A. The Evolution of the Legal Challenges Against the Barrier .................... 326 B. The Jurisprudence of the Barrier ............................................................... 329 1. Proportionality/Authority.................................................................... 329 2. Transiency/Permanence ....................................................................... 331 3. Balancing/Trumping ............................................................................. 333 4. Details/Structure ................................................................................... 334 5. Security/Politics..................................................................................... 336 C. The Missing Legal Argument: Any Barrier is Illegal .............................. 336 1. Why Are Barriers Undesirable?
    [Show full text]
  • Download PDF (199.5
    Contributors Jessica Almqvist is Professor of International Law and Human Rights at Lund University, Sweden. She holds a PhD in law from the European University Institute (2002), a Graduate Diploma in political science from UC Berkeley (1994) and a jur. kand. from Lund University (1993). Previous academic posi- tions were held at the Autonomous University of Madrid, the Center for Political and Constitutional Studies in Madrid and the Center on International Cooperation at New York University. Dr Almqvist has taught at the New School for Social Research, NYU Law School, China–EU School of Law, Law Faculty at La Sapienza, Global Institute for Higher Studies in Santo Domingo, Institute for Legal Research at the UNAM in Mexico City and the Spanish Diplomatic School. Benedetta Berti is Head of Policy Planning in the Office of the Secretary General at NATO. Dr Berti is also Associate Researcher at the Institute for European Studies at Vrije Universiteit Brussels and a Senior Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. An Eisenhower Global Fellow and a TED Senior Fellow, Benedetta has in the past decade held research and teaching positions at West Point and the Institute for National Security Studies, among others. Her research focuses on armed groups, internal wars and protection of civilians. Dr Berti is the author of four books, including Armed Political Organizations: From Conflict to Integration (Johns Hopkins University Press 2013) and her work and research have appeared, among others, in Al-Jazeera, Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, The National Interest, Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, as well as in academic journals including Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, Parameters, The Middle East Journal, ORBIS, Democratization, Civil Wars, Government and Opposition and Mediterranean Politics.
    [Show full text]
  • Ground to a Halt, Denial of Palestinians' Freedom Of
    Since the beginning of the second intifada, in September 2000, Israel has imposed restrictions on the movement of Palestinians in the West Bank that are unprecedented in scope and duration. As a result, Palestinian freedom of movement, which was limited in any event, has turned from a fundamental human right to a privilege that Israel grants or withholds as it deems fit. The restrictions have made traveling from one section to another an exceptional occurrence, subject to various conditions and a showing of justification for the journey. Almost every trip in the West Bank entails a great loss of time, much uncertainty, friction with soldiers, and often substantial additional expense. The restrictions on movement that Israel has imposed on Palestinians in the West Bank have split the West Bank into six major geographical units: North, Central, South, the Jordan Valley and northern Dead Sea, the enclaves resulting from the Separation Barrier, and East Jerusalem. In addition to the restrictions on movement from area to area, Israel also severely restricts movement within each area by splitting them up into subsections, and by controlling and limiting movement between them. This geographic division of the West Bank greatly affects every aspect of Palestinian life. B’TSELEM - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories Ground to a Halt 8 Hata’asiya St., Talpiot P.O. Box 53132 Jerusalem 91531 Denial of Palestinians’ Freedom Tel. (972) 2-6735599 Fax. (972) 2-6749111 of Movement in the West Bank www.btselem.org • [email protected] August 2007 Ground to a Halt Denial of Palestinians’ Freedom of Movement in the West Bank August 2007 Stolen land is concrete, so here and there calls are heard to stop the building in settlements and not to expropriate land.
    [Show full text]
  • A Case Study of Prolonged Occupation David Hughes
    Brooklyn Journal of International Law Volume 44 | Issue 1 Article 4 12-31-2018 Moving from Management to Termination: A Case Study of Prolonged Occupation David Hughes Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjil Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Human Rights Law Commons, International Humanitarian Law Commons, International Law Commons, Law and Philosophy Commons, Law and Politics Commons, Military, War, and Peace Commons, Other Law Commons, and the Transnational Law Commons Recommended Citation David Hughes, Moving from Management to Termination: A Case Study of Prolonged Occupation, 44 Brook. J. Int'l L. 109 (2018). Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjil/vol44/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Brooklyn Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of BrooklynWorks. MOVING FROM MANAGEMENT TO TERMINATION: A CASE STUDY OF PROLONGED OCCUPATION David Hughes* INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 110 I. THE OCCUPATION FRAMEWORK AND THE CHALLENGES OF PROLONGED OCCUPATION....................................................... 118 II. THE PROMINENT INTERPRETATIVE APPROACH: THE FACILITATION AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE PERPETUAL MANAGEMENT OF PROLONGED OCCUPATION.......................... 126 A. The Challenge of Economic Development....................... 130 B. The Challenge of Legislative
    [Show full text]
  • De Facto and De Jure Annexation: a Relevant Distinction in International Law? Israel and Area C: a Case Study
    FREE UNIVERSITY OF BRUSSELS European Master’s Degree in Human Rights and Democratisation A.Y. 2018/2019 De facto and de jure annexation: a relevant distinction in International Law? Israel and Area C: a case study Author: Eugenia de Lacalle Supervisor: François Dubuisson ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, our warmest thanks go to our thesis supervisor, François Dubuisson. A big part of this piece of work is the fruit of his advice and vast knowledge on both the conflict and International Law, and we certainly would not have been able to carry it out without his help. It has been an amazing experience to work with him, and we have learned more through having conversations with him than by spending hours doing research. We would like to deeply thank as well all those experts and professors that received an e-mail from a stranger and accepted to share their time, knowledge and opinions on such a controversial topic. They have provided a big part of the foundation of this research, all the while contributing to shape our perspectives and deepen our insight of the conflict. A list of these outstanding professionals can be found in Annex 1. Finally, we would also like to thank the Spanish NGO “Youth, Wake-Up!” for opening our eyes to the Israeli-Palestinian reality and sparkling our passion on the subject. At a more technical level, the necessary field research for this dissertation would have not been possible without its provision of accommodation during the whole month of June 2019. 1 ABSTRACT Since the occupation of the Arab territories in 1967, Israel has been carrying out policies of de facto annexation, notably through the establishment of settlements and the construction of the Separation Wall.
    [Show full text]
  • Expert Opinion the Lawfulness of Israel's House Demolition Policy
    Disclaimer: The following is a non-binding translation of the original Hebrew document. It is provided by HaMoked: Center for the Defence of the Individual for information purposes only. The original Hebrew prevails in any case of discrepancy. While every effort has been made to ensure its accuracy, HaMoked is not liable for the proper and complete translation nor does it accept any liability for the use of, reliance on, or for any errors or misunderstandings that may derive from the English translation. For queries about the translation please contact [email protected] Expert Opinion The Lawfulness of Israel’s House Demolition Policy under International Law and Israeli Law We the undersigned, Prof. Orna Ben-Naftali (of the School of Law at the College of Management Academics, member of the public council of Yesh Din, one of the petitioners), Prof. Guy Harpaz (of the Faculty of Law, and the Department of International Relations, Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Prof. Yuval Shany (of the Faculty of Law, Hebrew University of Jerusalem) and Prof. Mordechai Kremnitzer (Prof. Emeritus at the Law Faculty at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, currently of the Israel Democracy Institute and member of the Public Council of B’Tselem, one of the petitioners in this petition), hereby provide our Opinion regarding the lawfulness of Israel’s policy of demolishing/sealing off houses, carried out in the Territories for the purpose of deterrence, in support of the petition by HaMoked: Center for the Defence of the Individual et al. v. IDF Commander in the West Bank, wherein this Opinion is submitted and inasmuch as the matter falls in our area of expertise in international public law and/or criminal law, according to the matter.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Review of Administrative Detentions in the Israeli Supreme Court
    V anderbilt Journal of Transnational Law VOLUME 45 May 2012 NUMBER 3 Lifting the Veil of Secrecy: Judicial Review of Administrative Detentions in the Israeli Supreme Court Shiri Krebs* ABSTRACT All around the world, hundreds of individuals are constantly subjected to administrative detentions designed to prevent them from committing future atrocities. Generally, the main protection against arbitrary and unjustified administrative detentions is judicial review. Nonetheless, judicial review of administrative detention proceedings suffers from inherent difficulties and is typically based on ex parte proceedings and secret evidence. In spite of these difficulties and based on a few renowned cases, it is widely accepted in the scholarly debates that the Israeli judicial review model is robust * JSD Candidate, Stanford Law School. In the years 2006–2010 the Author served as a legal advisor on international law matters in the chambers of Chief-Justice Dorit Beinisch, President of the Israeli Supreme Court. I wish to thank Prof. Jenny Martinez for her guidance, advice and inspiration throughout the various stages of the year-long research project. I also wish to thank Prof. Stephen J. Schulhofer, Prof. Allen Weiner, Prof. Lawrence Friedman, Prof. Rogelio Perez-Perdomo, Prof. Moria Paz, Ms. Ayelet Sela, and Mr. Tomer Perry, for their valuable comments, advice, and encouragement, and to Editor in Chief Peter Muller, for his thorough work and thoughtful comments. Mostly, I am indebted to all of my interviewees: Supreme Court Justices, defense lawyers, state attorneys, intelligence officers and Palestinian detainees—who shared their personal and professional experiences with me. I am especially grateful for the financial support of Stanford Law School and the E.
    [Show full text]
  • When, How, and Why Did Israeli Law Faculties Come to Resemble Elite US Law Schools?
    Boston University School of Law Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law Faculty Scholarship 2009 American Moment[s]: When, How, and Why Did Israeli Law Faculties Come to Resemble Elite U.S. Law Schools? Pnina Lahav Boston University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Legal Education Commons Recommended Citation Pnina Lahav, American Moment[s]: When, How, and Why Did Israeli Law Faculties Come to Resemble Elite U.S. Law Schools?, 10 Theoretical Inquiries in Law 653 (2009). Available at: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/579 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AMERICAN MOMENT[S]: WHEN, HOW, AND WHY DID ISRAELI LAW FACULTIES COME TO RESEMBLE ELITE U.S. LAW SCHOOLS? Boston University School of Law Working Paper No. 09-32 (July 29, 2009) Pnina Lahav This paper can be downloaded without charge at: http://www.bu.edu/law/faculty/scholarship/workingpapers/2009.html Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1440864 Theoretical Inquiries in Law Volume 10, Number 2 July 2009 Article 13 HISTORIES OF LEGAL TRANSPLANTATIONS American Moment[s]: When, How, and Why Did Israeli Law Faculties Come to Resemble Elite U.S. Law Schools? Pnina Lahav∗ ∗, Copyright c 2009 The Berkeley Electronic Press. All rights reserved. Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1440864 American Moment[s]: When, How, and Why Did Israeli Law Faculties Come to Resemble Elite U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • DETAINED WITHOUT TRIAL Administrative Detention in the Occupied Territories Since the Beginning of the Intifada
    .י• י7- Jerusalem, October 1992 DETAINED WITHOUT TRIAL Administrative Detention in the Occupied Territories Since the Beginning of the Intifada בצלם BTSELEM The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories Jerusalem, October 1992 DETAINED WITHOUT TRIAL Administrative Detention in the Occupied Territories Since the Beginning of the Intifada ב ׳.׳jצלם B'TSELEM The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories -ב • •« • •צלם B'TSELEM The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories 18 Keren Hayesod St. Jerusalem 92149. Tel. 02/617271, 617274, Fax. 02/617946 מרכז המידע הישראלי לזכויות האדם בשטחים רחוב קרן היסוד 18, ירושלים 92149. טלפון 617274, 02/617271, פקס׳ 02/617946 ">ד•••:!.ן" ^Ijtfl ^ jLalll jjAaJ^I^VI oLjUll jS^o (.XjAWXVi/N^^iC^TN^^jill \A jj^aJjS ^jLi ISSN 0792-8114 © all rights reserved Graphic Design: Yael Boverman Written by: Daphna Golan Acknowledgements: - To Atty. Tamar Pelleg-Sryck. without whom this report could not have been written, and to all the detainees, lawyers, and reserve soldiers who agreed to be interviewed and provided many of the details mentioned in this report. - To Aaron Back, Bassem 'Eid. Yuval Ginbar and Sharon Roubach for their help in interviewing and writing. - To Yizhar Be'er, Avigdor Feldman, Menachem Hofnung, David Kretzmer. Roni Talmor and Avishai Margalit. for their comments. - To Miriam Algazi. Jessica Bonn, Chris Humber. Iris Tamir, Yael Ungar and Jim Ron for their assistance in typing, translating and editing. CONTENTS ל Introduction .1 2. Administrative Detention in International Law 8 3. Historical Background 19 4. The Detainees 28 5.
    [Show full text]