By Maj. Richard Hossfeld; Brooke Hossfeld; Maj. David Dixon — Instead of waiting passively for effective WHO reform, the United States Government—which currently provides more funding to the WHO than any other member—should act as the authority to influence disease response coordination and declare epidemic and/or pandemic outbreak on behalf of the world.

It’s 2020 and Boston has become a haven for homicide. Believing that an uptick in drug trafficking is responsible for the uptick in homicides—and left behind by its inability to break into the traffickers’ encrypted devices and communications—the Boston Police Department has a potential solution to its unsolved homicide problem: drones.

On November 2, 2017, Assistant U.S. Attorney Aloke Chakravarty visited Harvard Law School to reflect on his experience as he comes to the end of his service in the Department of Justice (“DOJ”). He also discussed how the field of national security prosecution has evolved since the September 11 terrorist attacks.

By Dan E. Stigall — This Article highlights the degree to which institutional frailty in the Indian justice sector poses a national security risk to the United States, and illuminates policy choices that can serve to mitigate this potential threat to U.S. persons and national interests. In particular, this Article demonstrates that a revitalized Indian justice sector would help create a bulwark against regional instability and the pernicious threat posed by global jihadist groups currently seeking a foothold in South Asia.

By Major R. Scott Adams. This Article will show that LOAC does not transform combatants into noncombatants under the hors de combat concept. It will then show that current U.S. policy is overly restrictive by erroneously granting noncombatant status to persons hors de combat.

Threats against aviation change constantly; countermeasures developed to combat emergent threats will become obsolete as new threats appear. Therefore, it is imperative for security practitioners to stay ahead of their enemies by identifying potential threats. This Article discusses ways in which current procedures fall short and should be reassessed.

This article summarizes the nature and purpose of the government’s terrorist watchlists, discusses the rules followed by agency screeners, explores the civil liberties implications of watchlisting, and identifies the need for oversight of the process.

By Maj. Gen. Charles J. Dunlap, Jr., USAF (Ret.)* The Washington Post recently ran a story entitled “Would declaring ‘war’ on ISIS make victory more certain—or would it even matter?”[1] Among other things, it stated that today, “[m]ost legal scholars find a war declaration irrelevant.” Maybe so, but I’m not one of them. One scholar was quoted as saying that […]

By Sahand Moarefy By partially unwinding the sanctions regime against Iran, the United States has sought to achieve two goals: provide Iran some meaningful level of economic relief such that it carries through with its commitment to scale back its nuclear program, while preserving the U.S.’s architecture of sanctions that target Iran for non-nuclear reasons. Barring any additional actions by […]

by Christopher Izant “[I]t would be very unfortunate if privacy protection in the 21st century were left primarily to the federal courts using the blunt instrument of the Fourth Amendment. Legislatures, elected by the people, are in a better position than we are to assess and respond to the changes that have already occurred and those that almost certainly will […]