American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review 17 Am. Bankr. Inst. L. Rev., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Boston College Law Review 50 B.C. L. Rev., No. 3, May, 2009. Boston University Public Interest Law Journal 18 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 10 Cardozo J. Conflict Resol., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Cardozo Public Law, Policy, & Ethics Journal 7 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol’y & Ethics J., No. 3, Summer, 2009. Chicago Journal of International Law 10 Chi. J. Int’l L., No. 1, Summer, 2009. Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 20 Colo. J. Int’l Envtl. L. & Pol’y, No. 2, Winter, 2009. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 32 Colum. J.L. & Arts, No. 3, Spring, 2009. Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal 8 Conn. Pub. Int. L.J., No. 2, Spring-Summer, 2009. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 18 Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol’y, No. 1, Fall, 2008. Cornell Law Review 94 Cornell L. Rev., No. 5, July, 2009. Creighton Law Review 42 Creighton L. Rev., No. 3, April, 2009. Criminal Law Forum 20 Crim. L. Forum, Nos. 2-3, Pp. 173-394, 2009. Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 34 Del. J. Corp. L., No. 2, Pp. 433-754, 2009. Environmental Law Reporter News & Analysis 39 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis, No. 7, July, 2009. European Journal of International Law 20 Eur. J. Int’l L., No. 2, April, 2009. Family Law Quarterly 43 Fam. L.Q., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Georgetown Journal of International Law 40 Geo. J. Int’l L., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 22 Geo. J. Legal Ethics, No. 2, Spring, 2009. Golden Gate University Law Review 39 Golden Gate U. L. Rev., No. 2, Winter, 2009. Harvard Environmental Law Review 33 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 297-608, 2009. International Review of Law and Economics 29 Int’l Rev. L. & Econ., No. 1, March, 2009. Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation 24 J. Envtl. L. & Litig., No. 1, Pp. 1-201, 2009. Journal of Legislation 34 J. Legis., No. 1, Pp. 1-98, 2008. Journal of Technology Law & Policy 14 J. Tech. L. & Pol’y, No. 1, June, 2009. Labor Lawyer 24 Lab. Law., No. 3, Winter/Spring, 2009. Michigan Journal of International Law 30 Mich. J. Int’l L., No. 3, Spring, 2009. New Criminal Law Review 12 New Crim. L. Rev., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Northern Kentucky Law Review 36 N. Ky. L. Rev., No. 4, Pp. 445-654, 2009. Ohio Northern University Law Review 35 Ohio N.U. L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 445-886, 2009. Pace Law Review 29 Pace L. Rev., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Quinnipiac Health Law Journal 12 Quinnipiac Health L.J., No. 2, Pp. 209-332, 2008-2009. Real Property, Trust and Estate Law Journal 44 Real Prop. Tr. & Est. L.J., No. 1, Spring, 2009. Rutgers Race and the Law Review 10 Rutgers Race & L. Rev., No. 2, Pp. 441-629, 2009. San Diego Law Review 46 San Diego L. Rev., No. 2, Spring, 2009. Seton Hall Law Review 39 Seton Hall L. Rev., No. 3, Pp. 725-1102, 2009. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 18 S. Cal. Interdisc. L.J., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 28 Stan. Envtl. L.J., No. 3, July, 2009. Tulsa Law Review 44 Tulsa L. Rev., No. 2, Winter, 2008. UMKC Law Review 77 UMKC L. Rev., No. 4, Summer, 2009. Washburn Law Journal 48 Washburn L.J., No. 3, Spring, 2009. Washington University Global Studies Law Review 8 Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev., No. 3, Pp.451-617, 2009. Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 29 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y, Pp. 1-401, 2009. Washington University Law Review 86 Wash. U. L. Rev., No. 6, Pp. 1273-1521, 2009. William Mitchell Law Review 35 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev., No. 4, Pp. 1235-1609, 2009. Yale Journal of International Law 34 Yale J. Int’l L., No. 2, Summer, 2009. Yale Journal on Regulation 26 Yale J. on Reg., No. 2, Summer, 2009.

/pdf/current-index-to-legal-periodicals-8re353ze53.pdf

Current index to legal periodicals

/pdf/state-secrecy-and-human-rights-violations-3wslp985cc.pdf

State secrecy and human rights violations

Over the past decades, international criminal law has evolved to become the operative norm for addressing the worst atrocities. Tribunals have conducted hundreds of trials addressing mass violence in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Cambodia, and other countries to bring to justice perpetrators of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. But international courts have struggled to hold perpetrators accountable for these offenses while still protecting the fair trial rights of defendants. Punishing Atrocities through a Fair Trial explores this tension, from criticism of the Nuremberg Trials as 'victor's justice' to the accusations of political motivations clouding prosecutions today by the International Criminal Court. It explains why international criminal law must adhere to transparent principles of legality and due process to ensure its future as a legitimate and viable legal regime.

Punishing Atrocities through a Fair Trial: International Criminal Law from Nuremberg to the Age of Global Terrorism

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Counterterrorism Efforts and Implications for International Humanitarian Law by Adebamiji Kunle Olulowo MSS, University of Ibadan, 2015 MBA, National Institute of Business Management, Chennai, 2015 Master in International Law and Diplomacy, University of Lagos, 1997 Bsc, Nigerian Defence Academy, Kaduna, 1991 Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Public Policy and Administration

/pdf/unmanned-aerial-vehicles-in-counterterrorism-efforts-and-1x1ydf1nnz.pdf

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Counterterrorism Efforts and Implications for International Humanitarian Law

/pdf/dialectics-of-transparency-and-secrecy-in-the-information-25vlu2m9jn.pdf

Dialectics of Transparency and Secrecy in the Information Age: The Role of Whistleblowing Legislation in the Regulatory Governance of Markets and in National Security

Ten years after the attacks of September 11, 2001, it almost goes without saying that the acts of grotesque violence committed on that day have had enormous effects on national security law and policy worldwide. To be labeled a terrorist, or to be accused of involvement in an act of terrorism, carries far more severe repercussions now than it did ten years ago. This is true under international law and under domestic law in nations that have dealt with serious national security concerns for many years. Given the U.N.’s global mandate to combat terrorism and that being defined as a terrorist can have widespread legal implications, this Article seeks to address how legal definitions are shaped and analyzes the lack of a globally accepted definition of terrorism in the context of domestic counterterrorism obligations. This Article addresses a significant historical gap in examining the interplay between international obligations and domestic definitions, the previously overlooked history and evolution of those definitions, and the potential rule of law issues arising from the definitions in their current form. In examining counterterrorism law in the United States, the United Kingdom, and India, it is clear that definitions of terrorism under various domestic laws have been repurposed from one legislative context to another and broadened in application, particularly since September 11. This has led to the arguably unintended consequences of disparate impact on outsider groups and the unmooring from rule of law principles. Since neither international norms nor domestic courts provide a significant check against creeping definitions, legislatures must take proactive steps to combat potential overreaching in applying the label of terrorism.

What's in a Name? How Nations Define Terrorism Ten Years after 9/11

One of the most intractable problems in the debate around maintaining the rule of law while combating the threat of terrorism is the question of secrecy and transparency. In peace time, important tenets to the rule of law include transparency of the law, limits on government power, and consistency of the law as applied to individuals in the polity. Yet the post-9/11 decision-making by the Bush and Obama administrations has been characterized be excessive secrecy that stymies most efforts to hold the government accountable for its abuses. Executive branch policy with regard to detention, interrogation, targeted killing and surveillance are kept secret, and that secrecy has been largely validated by a compliant judiciary that has dismissed almost all suits challenging human and civil rights abuses resulting from counterterrorism programs. Efforts by Congress to engage in meaningful oversight have met with mixed results; in the area of government surveillance, such efforts have been fruitless without the benefit of leaked information on warrantless surveillance by government insiders, since the executive branch has generally refused to make public vital aspects of its surveillance programs in ways that could give oversight efforts more muscle. At the same time, the executive branch has consistently defended the legality and efficacy of these surveillance programs. This paper considers the nature and effect of the warrantless surveillance infrastructure constructed in the United States since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and discusses surveillance-related powers and accountability measures in the United Kingdom and India as comparative examples. Through this analysis, this paper questions whether accountability over government abuses in this area exists in an effective form, or if governments have constructed a post-9/11 legal architecture with regard to surveillance that engenders excessive secrecy and renders accountability mechanisms largely meaningless.

/pdf/surveillance-secrecy-and-the-search-for-meaningful-3zjcswftqr.pdf

Surveillance, Secrecy, and the Search for Meaningful Accountability

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, led to profound changes in societal viewpoints, political agendas, and the legal authorization to combat terrorism The United States continues to struggle with keeping its population safe while maintaining the principles of democracy and the rule of law essential to the nation’s character The US response to terrorism has been multifaceted and expansive, reflective of the US role in global security; debate over these matters will continue for the foreseeable future This report, prepared for the American Society of Comparative Law, offers summary, analysis and critique of many aspects of counterterrorism law, including the definition of terrorism and designation of terrorist organizations; application of international law; criminal law treatment of terrorism, including financing and material support; investigative powers of intelligence and law enforcement agencies; treatment of immigrants; executive power and the CIA targeted killing program; detention and interrogation of terrorism suspects; and access to courts and the treatment of classified information

Country Report on Counterterrorism: United States of America

Ten years after the attacks of September 11, 2001, it almost goes without saying that the acts of grotesque violence committed on that day have had enormous effects on national security law and policy worldwide. To be labeled a terrorist, or to be accused of involvement in an act of terrorism, carries far more severe repercussions now than it did ten years ago. This is true under international law and under domestic law in nations that have dealt with serious national security concerns for many years. Given the U.N.’s global mandate to combat terrorism and that being defined as a terrorist can have widespread legal implications, this Article seeks to address how legal definitions are shaped and analyzes the lack of a globally accepted definition of terrorism in the context of domestic counterterrorism obligations. This Article addresses a significant historical gap in examining the interplay between international obligations and domestic definitions, the previously overlooked history and evolution of those definitions, and the potential rule of law issues arising from the definitions in their current form.

/pdf/what-s-in-a-name-how-nations-define-terrorism-ten-years-307cb6d1eh.pdf

Sudha Setty

Papers

What's in a Name? How Nations Define Terrorism Ten Years after 9/11

Surveillance, Secrecy, and the Search for Meaningful Accountability

Country Report on Counterterrorism: United States of America

What’s In a Name? How Nations Define Terrorism Ten Years After 9/11

Letter to The New York Times