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 […]
Volume 7, Issue 2 of the Harvard National Security Journal is now available.
This Article proffers a hitherto understated mechanism for the establishment, maintenance and cogent analysis of national security: the establishment and maintenance of religious pluralism. To date, official positions and scholarship sparingly comment on this assertion. To address these gaps and to offer a fresh perspective on this subject, this Article undertakes a legal analysis to buttress the notion that U.S. national security interests can be best served by working towards the establishment of religious pluralism around the globe. Due to its strategic relevance for U.S. national security, the case of Pakistan – and the constitutional and legal apparatus that undergirds its view of religious minorities – serves as a blueprint for understanding this new national security paradigm (“NNSP”).
Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
On November 13, 2001 then-President George W. Bush issued a military order that would forever be remembered. His military order “called for the [S]ecretary of [D]efense to detain non-citizens accused of international terrorism.” Specially, the order applied to members of al Qaeda, and “all those who have engaged in, aided, or conspired to commit international terrorist acts against the United States or its citizens.” The Secretary of Defense “[was] charged with establishing military tribunals (also called military commissions) to conduct trials of non-citizens accused of terrorism either in the United States or in other parts of the world.” Then-President Bush’s military order created the United States (U.S.) Military Commissions that have been the center of continued national and international criticism.
Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
Volume 7, Issue 1 of the Harvard National Security Journal is now available. Read Volume 7 here !
Volume 7, Issue 2 of the Harvard National Security Journal is now available.
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 […]
Read more ›Assistant Attorney General for National Security John P. Carlin delivered remarks at Harvard Law School on Thursday, December 3rd at an event hosted by the Harvard National Security Journal.
Read more ›In wide-ranging remarks at Harvard Law School on Friday October 16 2015 John Bellinger, now a partner Arnold & Porter LLP, reflected on his 29-year legal career in both the public and the private sectors, discussed international law, and encouraged students to pursue careers in national security.
Read more ›The recent tragedies involving migrants in the Mediterranean have stoked urgent calls for UN action.
Read more ›When President Obama hosts Chinese leader Xi Jinping at the White House this week, he will do so as the eighth US president, starting with Richard Nixon, to engage with China based on a failed strategy. This article revisits a Foreign Affairs article—”Asia After Vietnam”—authored by Richard Nixon in October 1967.
Read more ›By Major Dan Maurer* This essay imagines a fictional future ground conflict pitting the United States and a host country against a non-state militant terrorist organization that has seized territory. This hypothetical scenario imagines a “rule of law” mission in the immediate wake of conventional combat, but suggests that this task will be, ultimately and inevitably, hampered when the intervening […]
Read more ›To best serve Israel, the country’s strategic studies community should favor more conceptual or “molecular” assessments of expected security perils.
Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
While policymakers may argue that military drone combat presents no risk to American forces, the battle scars for drone operators are more psychological than physical. We should support the mental health of those soldiers we task with operating drones.
Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
Read more ›
