MENU

International Law (Treaties, Intergovernmental Relations)

Congress as "Iran Deal" Enforcer?

International & National Security Law Practice Group Teleforum Friday, September 04, 02:30 PMFederalist Society Teleforum Conference Call

With final congressional review action on the Iran Deal just days away, is Congress empowered to act in a fully informed manner with the vital information pertinent to all side agreements? Is the IAEA predictably a trustworthy actor? What tools might the people’s branch of government utilize to provide oversight and enforcement capability if Iran is in violation? Prof. Alan Dershowitz and Ambassador Dennis Ross approach these questions from different perspectives drawn from deep historical and geopolitical experience. Prof. Dershowitz is author of a book entitled The Case Against the Iran Deal: How Can We Now Stop Iran from Getting Nukes? and Ambassador Ross most recently wrote "How to Put Some Teeth into The Nuclear Deal with Iran" with David Patraeus. 

Featuring:

  • Professor Alan Dershowtiz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
  • Ambassador Dennis Ross, William Davidson Distinguished Fellow and Counselor, The Washington Institute
  • Jamil Jaffer, Moderator, Former Chief Counsel and Senior Advisor, Senate Foreign Relations Committee

The "Iran Deal" - Podcast

International & National Security Law Practice Group Podcast
Jamil N. Jaffer, David B. Rivkin, Jr., John C. Yoo August 03, 2015

The "Iran Deal" as negotiated by the Obama Administration and approved by the UN raises controversies on many levels. One foundational question concerns whether a president's constitutional Article II power extends to an executive agreement that incurs foreign obligations and implicates international law. The congressional response in the Corker-Cardin review act demurred from challenging whether the nuclear deal was an end-run around treaty Senate ratification requirements by acknowledging the executive agreement classification. Now there are questions as to whether the final deal is sufficiently inconsistent with the anticipated agreement such that the Corker-Cardin bill is undermined. Does UN approval prior to congressional review moot Corker-Cardin? Additionally, as yet unquantified side agreements may have a bearing on congressional posture. Also, some states have sanctioned Iran separately. Since an executive agreement does not carry the federal pre-emptive power as would a treaty, may states continue to act independent of Corker-Cardin, UN, or administration commitments?

  • Jamil N. Jaffer, Adjunct Professor of Law and Director, Homeland and National Security Law Program, George Mason University School of Law and former Chief Counsel and Senior Advisor, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
  • David B. Rivkin, Jr., Partner, Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California Berkeley School of Law

Are We @Cyberwar, and If So, How Should We Fight It? - Event Audio/Video

2015 National Security Symposium
Stewart A. Baker, Eric Jensen, Catherine B. Lotrionte, John C. Yoo, Jeremy A. Rabkin May 22, 2015

The Federalist Society's International & National Security Law Practice Group presented this panel during the 2015 National Security Symposium on April 29 in Washington, D.C.

Panel II: "Are We @Cyberwar, and If So, How Should We Fight It?"
10:30 a.m. - 11:45 a.m.

Several significant cyber incidents, including the recent Sony hack, have been attributed to nation-states or groups closely associated with nation-states.  The Intelligence Community's most recent Worldwide Threat Assessment predicts "an ongoing series of low-to-moderate level cyber attacks from a variety of sources over time, which will impose cumulative costs on U.S. economic competitiveness and national security."  It identifies Russia, China, Iran and North Korea as Threat Actors.  An expert panel will analyze whether any cyber incidents should be considered acts of war, whether U.S. responses be governed by the Law of Armed Conflict, what kinds of incidents warrant responses, and what those responses might be.

  • Hon. Stewart A. Baker, Partner, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, former Assistant Secretary of Policy, Department of Homeland Security, and former General Counsel, National Security Agency
  • Prof. Eric Talbot Jensen, Brigham Young University Law School, and former Chief, International Law, Office of The Judge Advocate General, U.S. Army
  • Catherine B. Lotrionte, Director, CyberProject, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, and former former Counsel to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, former Assistant General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Central Intelligence Agency
  • Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California Berkeley School of Law, former Deputy Assistant U.S. Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel
  • Moderator: Prof. Jeremy A. Rabkin, George Mason University School of Law

April 29, 2015
Washington, DC

The Reach of Federal Warrants - The Microsoft Case - Podcast

Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Podcast
James M. Garland, David Howard February 11, 2015

In December of 2014, Microsoft filed a brief with the Federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York to prevent the U.S. Department of Justice from seizing a customer’s data stored in Dublin, Ireland. It’s a case that raises important questions about the right of Americans to know what the government and companies are doing with sensitive electronic data. How do we ensure accountability both to the law through reasonable regulation, and to the courts through effective judicial review? The case also raises questions about the rights of people in other countries. Will they continue to have their privacy rights protected by their own laws? Anticipating a world where every device is a connected device, these are but a few of the important questions raised by this case regarding the future of privacy and regulations going forward.

  • James M. Garland, Partner, Covington & Burling LLP
  • David Howard, Corporate Vice President & Deputy General Counsel, Microsoft

America In Retreat: The New Isolationism and the Coming Global Disorder - Podcast

International & National Security Law Practice Group Podcast
Bret Stephens December 19, 2014

In December 2011 the last American soldier left Iraq. “We’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq,” boasted President Obama. He was proved devastatingly wrong less than three years later as jihadists seized the Iraqi city of Mosul. The event cast another dark shadow over the future of global order—a shadow, which, Bret Stephens, Deputy Editorial Page Editor and Foreign Affairs Columnist for The Wall Street Journal, argues, we ignore at our peril.

America in Retreat: The New Isolationism and the Coming Global Disorder identifies a profound crisis on the global horizon. As Americans seek to withdraw from the world to tend to domestic problems, America’s adversaries spy opportunity. Vladimir Putin’s ambitions to restore the glory of the czarist empire go effectively unchecked, as do China’s attempts to expand its maritime claims in the South China Sea, as do Iran’s efforts to develop nuclear capabilities. Civil war in Syria displaces millions throughout the Middle East while turbocharging the forces of radical Islam. Long-time allies such as Japan, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, doubting the credibility of American security guarantees, are tempted to freelance their foreign policy, irrespective of U.S. interests.

Mr. Stephens argues for American reengagement abroad. He explains how military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan was the right course of action, foolishly executed. He traces the intellectual continuity between anti-interventionist statesmen such as Henry Wallace and Robert Taft in the late 1940s and Barack Obama and Rand Paul today. And he makes an unapologetic case for Pax Americana, “a world in which English is the default language of business, diplomacy, tourism, and technology; in which markets are global, capital is mobile, and trade is increasingly free; in which values of openness and tolerance are, when not the norm, often the aspiration.”

In a chapter imagining the world of 2019, Mr. Stephens shows what could lie in store if Americans continue on their current course. Yet we are not doomed to this future. Mr. Stephens makes a passionate rejoinder to those who argue that America is in decline, a process that is often beyond the reach of political cures. Instead, we are in retreat—the result of faulty, but reversible, policy choices. By embracing its historic responsibility as the world’s policeman, America can safeguard not only greater peace in the world but also greater prosperity at home.

  • Bret L. Stephens, Deputy Editorial Page Editor, Foreign Affairs Columnist, The Wall Street Journal