MENU

International & National Security Law

Subscribe in a reader

Subcommittees

  • Human Rights & Immigration
  • International Organizations
  • International Tribunals
  • National Security
  • Trade, E-Commerce, & Investment

Projects

2017 National Lawyers Convention

November 16, 2017

The 2017 National Lawyers Convention is scheduled for Thursday, November 16 through Saturday, November 18 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. More information will be posted later this summer.

Fifth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference

The Relationship between Congress and the Executive Branch
May 17, 2017

The Fifth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference will examine the changing and often convoluted relationship between the legislative and the executive branches in the United States government. This daylong conference will feature plenary panels, addresses, and breakout panels on topics such as “The Unitary Executive,” “Chevron Deference,” and “Congressional Oversight of Voting Rights.”

The Conference will begin with an opening address by Senator Mike Lee and end with a closing address by OMB Director Mick Mulvaney and a reception.

Foreign Government Partnerships - Podcast

International & National Security Law Podcast
Ryan C. Crocker, William K Lietzau, Salli A. Swartz, Adam R. Pearlman March 15, 2017

Historically, protecting national security meant protecting one’s own citizens and sovereign territory from the threats or opposing interests of other nation-states. The concept has broadened, however, as transnational terrorists act with unprecedented scale and range: the threats they pose are of a magnitude previously only possible for nation-states, and they act indiscriminately among the several countries they feel justified in attacking. The United States’ interest in defeating these actors, then, is one that is shared by many other countries that are not necessarily our allies in a larger sense.

In this the final episode of our three-part Security Partnership Series, we discussed the benefits and limits of partnerships with foreign government agencies for counterterrorism purposes. What conditions form the basis of a productive partnership?  How might such partnerships compromise our operations? How do we decide how much information to share?  Does partnering with a foreign country’s intelligence agency limit our own independent intelligence gathering capabilities?  Perhaps most controversially – what limits can or should be imposed on the methods used to collect the counterterrorism intelligence to be shared? Of the foreign governments that have publicly complained about the United States’ use of certain signals intelligence capabilities, do their intelligence agencies nevertheless desire the information collected? Likewise, although the United States has banned certain interrogation methods domestically, might our intelligence agencies nevertheless want to obtain human intelligence information gathered by foreign agencies using those or other similar methods?

Featuring:

  • Amb. Ryan C. Crocker , Dean of the Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University
  • William K Lietzau, Vice President, Deputy General Counsel, PAE 
  • Salli A. Swartz, Partner, Artus Wise Partners 
  • Moderator: Adam Pearlman, Special Advisor to the International and National Security Law Practice Group 

Foreign Government Partnerships

International & National Security Law Practice Group Teleforum
Ryan C. Crocker, William K Lietzau, Salli A. Swartz, Adam R. Pearlman March 09, 2017

Historically, protecting national security meant protecting one’s own citizens and sovereign territory from the threats or opposing interests of other nation-states. The concept has broadened, however, as transnational terrorists act with unprecedented scale and range: the threats they pose are of a magnitude previously only possible for nation-states, and they act indiscriminately among the several countries they feel justified in attacking. The United States’ interest in defeating these actors, then, is one that is shared by many other countries that are not necessarily our allies in a larger sense.

In this the final episode of our three-part Security Partnership Series, we will discuss the benefits and limits of partnerships with foreign government agencies for counterterrorism purposes. What conditions form the basis of a productive partnership?  How might such partnerships compromise our operations? How do we decide how much information to share?  Does partnering with a foreign country’s intelligence agency limit our own independent intelligence gathering capabilities?  Perhaps most controversially – what limits can or should be imposed on the methods used to collect the counterterrorism intelligence to be shared? Of the foreign governments that have publicly complained about the United States’ use of certain signals intelligence capabilities, do their intelligence agencies nevertheless desire the information collected? Likewise, although the United States has banned certain interrogation methods domestically, might our intelligence agencies nevertheless want to obtain human intelligence information gathered by foreign agencies using those or other similar methods?

Featuring:

  • Amb. Ryan C. Crocker , Dean of the Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University
  • William K Lietzau, Vice President, Deputy General Counsel, PAE 
  • Salli A. Swartz, Partner, Artus Wise Partners 
  • Moderator: Adam Pearlman, Special Advisor to the International and National Security Law Practice Group 

Courthouse Steps: Hernandez v. Mesa - Podcast

International & National Security Law Podcast
Steven Giaier March 08, 2017

On February 21, the Supreme Court heard argument in Hernandez v. Mesa. In July of 2010, a 15-year-old adolescent named Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca and his friends were playing along a concrete structure on the border of the U.S. and Mexico. When Jesus Mesa, Jr., a U.S. Border Patrol Agent arrived, he detained one of the youths on the border, and shot and killed Hernandez, who was hiding behind a pillar of the Paso Del Norte Bridge on the Mexican side of the border. Hernandez’s parents sued Agent Mesa under the Fourth and Fifth Amendment for the use of unlawful and disproportionate force. Agent Mesa argued that the Fourth and Fifth Amendments did not apply because Hernandez was not a U.S. citizen.

The District Court found for Agent Mesa, while the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the Fifth Amendment protections against deadly force applied but the Fourth Amendment did not, and that Agent Mesa should not receive qualified immunity. The main questions for the Supreme Court to answer are: Does the Fourth Amendment apply? Should qualified immunity apply to the border patrol agent? And can Agent Mesa make a Bivens claim?

Steve Giaier of the House Committee on Homeland Security attended oral argument and shared his perceptions.

Featuring:

  • Steven Giaier, Senior Counsel, House Committee on Homeland Security

Courthouse Steps: Hernandez v. Mesa

International & National Security Law Practice Group Teleforum
Steven Giaier March 07, 2017

On February 21, the Supreme Court heard argument in Hernandez v. Mesa. In July of 2010, a 15-year-old adolescent named Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca and his friends were playing along a concrete structure on the border of the U.S. and Mexico. When Jesus Mesa, Jr., a U.S. Border Patrol Agent arrived, he detained one of the youths on the border, and shot and killed Hernandez, who was hiding behind a pillar of the Paso Del Norte Bridge on the Mexican side of the border. Hernandez’s parents sued Agent Mesa under the Fourth and Fifth Amendment for the use of unlawful and disproportionate force. Agent Mesa argued that the Fourth and Fifth Amendments did not apply because Hernandez was not a U.S. citizen.

The District Court found for Agent Mesa, while the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the Fifth Amendment protections against deadly force applied but the Fourth Amendment did not, and that Agent Mesa should not receive qualified immunity. The main questions for the Supreme Court to answer are: Does the Fourth Amendment apply? Should qualified immunity apply to the border patrol agent? And can Agent Mesa make a Bivens claim?

Steve Giaier of the House Committee on Homeland Security attended oral argument and will share his perceptions.

Featuring:

  • Steven Giaier, Senior Counsel, House Committee on Homeland Security

Travel Moratorium Executive Order - Podcast

International & National Security Law Practice Group Podcast
David J. Bier, Andrew C. McCarthy, Shireen Qudosi March 01, 2017

On January 21, President Trump signed an executive order “Protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States.” The order suspended immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the country by citizens of seven majority Muslim countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days. It also suspended refugee admission into the United States for 120 days, and barred entry of Syrian refugees until further notice. The stated order’s purpose was to “ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles.”

The Washington State Attorney General filed a lawsuit against the order in District Court citing harm to Seattle residents. Judge James Robart in the Western District of Washington issued a restraining order on February 3 halting President Trump’s executive order nationwide. The Department of Justice appealed the restraining order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which rejected the Justice Department’s appeal for an emergency stay.

David Bier of CATO and Andrew C. McCarthy of National Review, who have both written on the topic (see their pieces here and here respectively), joined activist Shireen Qudosi, Director of Muslim Matters with America Matters, to discuss the legality of the executive order in the second episode of our Executive Orders Teleforum Series.

Featuring:

  • Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow, National Review Institute
  • David J. Bier, Immigration Policy Analyst, Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity 
  • Shireen Qudosi, Director of Muslim Matters, America Matters 

Public-Private Partnerships in Cybersecurity and Technology - Podcast

International & National Security Law Practice Group Podcast
Catherine B. Lotrionte, Adam Segal, Adam R. Pearlman February 28, 2017

The second Teleforum in our Security Partnership Series examined the complex mechanics and ethics of cyber partnerships and many important questions. Should government agencies be enlisting private security firms to help prevent hacking into their own systems? On the other hand, should insurance companies require private company customers to do the same? Should private corporations, particularly financial institutions, be required to report hacking incidents to the federal government, and, if so, to what agency, for what purpose? Consumer protection? Economic security? What are the lawful responses to being hacked for government or industry? Is the best defense a good offense? How effective are today’s consumer-level encryption algorithms? Does public/private cooperation on the cybersecurity front impact private companies’ willingness and ability to cooperate with intelligence investigations under the supervision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court?

As behavior in the cyber domain has perhaps become the most ubiquitous asymmetric threat to modern life, governments, companies, and individuals each have unprecedented exposure to theft and sabotage. Home networks are compromised through connected thermostats; commercial airliners’ flight controls have been hacked through in-flight entertainment systems; passwords and credit card data are stored on servers that are the targets of daily hacking attempts, with that data often appearing for sale online.

Featuring:

  • Prof. Catherine B. Lotrionte, Director of the Institute for Law, Science and Global Security and Visiting Assistant Professor of Government and Foreign Service, Georgetown University
  • Adam Segal, Ira A. Lipman Chair, Emerging Technologies & National Security and Director of the Digital & Cyberspace Policy Program, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
  • Moderator: Adam Pearlman,Special Advisor to the International and National Security Law Practice Group 

 

Travel Moratorium Executive Order

International & National Security Law Practice Group Teleforum
David J. Bier, Andrew C. McCarthy, Shireen Qudosi February 28, 2017

On January 21, President Trump signed an executive order “Protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States.” The order suspended immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the country by citizens of seven majority Muslim countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days. It also suspended refugee admission into the United States for 120 days, and barred entry of Syrian refugees until further notice. The stated order’s purpose was to “ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles.”

The Washington State Attorney General filed a lawsuit against the order in District Court citing harm to Seattle residents. Judge James Robart in the Western District of Washington issued a restraining order on February 3 halting President Trump’s executive order nationwide. The Department of Justice appealed the restraining order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which rejected the Justice Department’s appeal for an emergency stay.

David Bier of CATO and Andrew C. McCarthy of National Review, who have both written on the topic (see their pieces here and here respectively), will join activist Shireen Qudosi, Director of Muslim Matters with America Matters, to discuss the legality of the executive order in the second episode of our Executive Orders Teleforum Series.

Featuring:

  • Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow, National Review Institute
  • David J. Bier, Immigration Policy Analyst, Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity 
  • Shireen Qudosi, Director of Muslim Matters, America Matters 

Public-Private Partnerships in Cybersecurity and Technology

International & National Security Law Practice Group Teleforum
Catherine B. Lotrionte, Adam Segal, Adam R. Pearlman February 27, 2017

As behavior in the cyber domain has perhaps become the most ubiquitous asymmetric threat to modern life, governments, companies, and individuals each have unprecedented exposure to theft and sabotage. Home networks are compromised through connected thermostats; commercial airliners’ flight controls have been hacked through in-flight entertainment systems; passwords and credit card data are stored on servers that are the targets of daily hacking attempts, with that data often appearing for sale online.

The second Teleforum in our Security Partnership Series will examine the complex mechanics and ethics of cyber partnerships. Should government agencies be enlisting private security firms to help prevent hacking into their own systems?  On the other hand, should insurance companies require private company customers to do the same?  Should private corporations, particularly financial institutions, be required to report hacking incidents to the federal government, and, if so, to what agency, for what purpose?  Consumer protection?  Economic security?  What are the lawful responses to being hacked for government or industry?  Is the best defense a good offense?  How effective are today’s consumer-level encryption algorithms?  Does public/private cooperation on the cybersecurity front impact private companies’ willingness and ability to cooperate with intelligence investigations under the supervision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court?

Featuring:

  • Prof. Catherine B. Lotrionte, Director of the Institute for Law, Science and Global Security and Visiting Assistant Professor of Government and Foreign Service, Georgetown University
  • Adam Segal, Ira A. Lipman Chair, Emerging Technologies & National Security and Director of the Digital & Cyberspace Policy Program, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
  • Moderator: Adam Pearlman,Special Advisor to the International and National Security Law Practice Group