- Professor David Moore, Brigham Young Law
For months, Syrian and Russian warplanes have bombed Aleppo, killing and wounding residents. Russian officials have referred to the siege as “diplomacy backed by force.” The US Ambassador to the UN has called it “barbarism.” The US and France have called for a War Crimes investigation, but any meaningful action at the UN has been blocked by Russia’s place on the Security Council. In this Teleforum, two distinguished professors with extensive practical experience examined the status of the siege under the Law of Armed Conflict and International Humanitarian Law.
This panel will consider Justice Scalia's legacy in national security law, revisiting his opinions in major national security cases, including Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and Boumediene v. Bush. It will also discuss the influence Justice Scalia's jurisprudence has exerted on national security law more broadly and his views on the role of the courts reviewing national security policy.
This panel was held on November 18, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC.
International & National Security Law: Justice Scalia’s Jurisprudence and National Security
3:15 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.
The Mayflower Hotel
After one year of Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action assessments and critiques, have American security interests been damaged? Is Iranian gamesmanship ephemeral, or durably threatening? Critics point to evasions of the JCPOA like the easing of economic sanctions and the un-reviewed arms deals and contracts with Russia to say that the “deal” has only served as cover for Iranian nuclear infractions. Is the U.S. Congress empowered to demand a better deal, even after a year of performance and European reliance on a return to the status quo ante for financial re-engagement with Iran? Are there historic precedents for resetting the terms? In light of coming sunset clauses that may see Iran at near zero break-out time, what leverage potential does NATO possess, and do any “snap back” sanctions represent real restraining power?
In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, but the treaty did not go into effect because the Senate refused to ratify it. Twenty years later, the Obama administration still favors ratification of the treaty as part of its nuclear disarmament strategy. President Obama appears to be attempting to go around the Senate by signing a U.N. Security Council Resolution that would, according to a National Security Council spokesman, “call on states not to test and support the CTBT’s objectives,” but would not be legally binding. Professor Kontorovich of Northwestern University School of Law and Professor Spiro of Temple Law School joined us to debate the international & national security law implications of these actions.