THREE ARGUMENTS ABOUT WAR
In: Constitutional Commentary, Jg. 30 (2015), S. 1
Online
academicJournal
I. INTRODUCTION America is a nation built on war. This is true not only in the historical fact that armed conflict during the Revolutionary period secured the independence of a freshly imagined people, and that American interests in economics, territory, and security have been regularly advanced through war. It is also reflected, more generally, in the content of the rule of law, which has increasingly has been derived from the country's war experience. Although talk of war permeates public debate, it is a grave mistake to presume that all invocations of war are identical. In truth, there is a multiplicity of ways in which references to armed conflict can appear in constitutional discourse. Acquiring a more sophisticated understanding of these occurrences is essential to appreciating the stakes involved and determining what, if anything, can be done about it. The practice of taking rhetorical advantage of war implicates theories of constitutional structure and political development, while raising persistent rule of law concerns. Consider three very different contexts in which the topic of war has been engaged in recent years: the targeted killing of suspected terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki, President Obama's efforts to mark the end of war in Iraq, and President Obama's decision to "end" his predecessor's "war on terror." Observe, too, three different ways war can be used in a legal argument. In the first example, a claim to an actual state of hostilities plays a central role in legal argumentation. On September 30, 2011, the United States ...
Titel: |
THREE ARGUMENTS ABOUT WAR
|
---|---|
Autor/in / Beteiligte Person: | Tsai, Robert L. |
Link: | |
Zeitschrift: | Constitutional Commentary, Jg. 30 (2015), S. 1 |
Veröffentlichung: | 2015 |
Medientyp: | academicJournal |
Schlagwort: |
|
Sonstiges: |
|