Doctrine

About: Doctrine is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 21901 publications have been published within this topic receiving 204282 citations.

Modern Trinitarian Perspectives

Abstract: Thompson provides a survey of modern thought on the doctrine of the Trinity, which has recently enjoyed a revival of interest. He examines the work of important theologians and their views on the relationship of the trinitarian doctrine to Scripture, the Church, philosophy, politics, and society.

American Army Doctrine for the Post-Cold War.

Abstract: : This historical study treats the development of the Army's first doctrine for the post-Cold War. Raised to new prominence in the modernization and reform of the Utailed States Army of the 197Os-198Os, Army operational doctrine was rendered obsolescent in the early l99Os by the Cold War's end and by the advanced military technological capabilities demonstrated in the Persian Gulf War. The new doctrine formulated under General Frederick Franks, Commanding General of the Army Training and Doctrine Command, sprang from the assumptions of a new strategic era. In the process of rethinking war fighting, a new dynamics of battle emerged, and a new operational doctrine was formulated. This study is intended to present a critical documented record of that important event in late-2Oth century American Army history. Treated are: its listurical antecedents, strategic context, study and formulation, finished results, propagation, and the mecloanics of the effort. This monograph is additionally intended to provided, in its ideational detail, a case-study of the intellectual and institutional processes involved, for use by future doctrine planners.

Military Capabilities for Hybrid War: Insights from the Israel Defense Forces in Lebanon and Gaza

Abstract: : What kind of Army does the United States require to protect its interests in the future? Will the future challenges facing the United States be, as some argue, centered on "irregular warfare" (IW), similar to Iraq and Afghanistan?1 Will they be conflicts against state actors, like North Korea or Iran? Or might they be "hybrid wars," defined by defense analyst Frank Hoffman as a "blend of the lethality of state conflict with the fanatical and protracted fervor of irregular war"?2 This paper examines the experience of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in the recent conflicts in Lebanon and Gaza to argue for balanced Army forces, capable of joint combined arms fire and maneuver, to provide the range of capabilities needed to prevail in future conflicts. Furthermore, as recent U.S. operations have shown, Army forces are particularly important against irregular adversaries where there is often a requirement for "boots on the ground" for a protracted period of time to reach desired strategic end states. Hybrid opponents only increase the challenges the joint force-especially ground forces-might face. The U.S. military, particularly its ground forces, has made significant adaptations to its high-end warfighting skills in response to the IW environments in Afghanistan and Iraq.3 This adaptation is evident in the implementation of a new counterinsurgency (COIN) doctrine that has markedly increased U.S. effectiveness in both of these wars. Nevertheless, the opponents the United States and its partners have faced in Afghanistan and Iraq have limited military capabilities, especially in the realms of training, organization, equipment, and command and control (C2). Therefore, to better understand the breadth of IW challenges that should affect U.S. decisions about future military capabilities, one must look elsewhere.

Invisible Women: The Legal Fiction of Marital Unity in Nineteenth-Century America

Abstract: In Thaler v. Thaler, a 1977 New York divorce case awarding alimony to the husband, the judge had occasion to summarize the nineteenth-century shift in the legal status of married women. At common law, he asserted, "the husband and wife were orne and the husband was the one .... But with the advent of the married woman's property acts ... any previous justification for this one-way support duty faded."' In the same year, however, an unemployed Brooklyn construction worker aired his reservations about his wife's employment by evoking the old common law image of marriage. "When you get married," he said, "you figure it's gonna be like one. Only it's always the husband's one."2 The first of these comments suggests the focus of this essay: challenges to the common law doctrine of marital unity during a pivotal era of American law, roughly 1820-1860.3 The second comment reflects its emphasis: the uncanny persistence of that doctrine far beyond its Christian and common law origins. The judge in Thaler v. Thaler based his decision, in part, on an 1848 statute extending to married women the right to own their own property. He interpreted the statute as a significant legal alteration in the patriarchal family and implied that like the many other statutes passed in common law jurisdictions during this period, it marked the beginning of legal equality between wives and husbands.4 By contrast, this essay contends that the married women's property acts failed to make such a significant alteration. Admittedly, if one defines patriarchy in the husband-wife relationship as the reduction of the wife to the status of property owned and controlled by the husband, one could argue that it never existed in its purest form in the Anglo-American legal tradition.5 Yet, basic elements of that patriarchal construct underpinned all of Anglo-American domestic relations law, and they continued to exist long after the enactment of the married women's property acts of the mid-nineteenth century.

Essential facilities: an epithet in need of limiting principles

Abstract: There is much talk these days, particularly in the context of deregulated industries, about the so-called essential facilities doctrine1 "socalled" because most Supreme Court cases invoked in support do not speak of it and can be explained without reference to it. Indeed, the cases support the doctrine only by implication and in highly qualified ways. You will not find any case that provides a consistent rationale for the doctrine or that explores the social costs and benefits or the administrative costs of requiring the creator of an asset to share it with a rival. It is less a doctrine than an epithet, indicating some exception to the right to keep one's creations to oneself, but not telling us what those exceptions are.