Search results

A recent front-page story in the New York Times—"Study Says Haiti Sanctions Kill Up to a 1,000 Children a Month"—draws attention to a vexing ethical problem: Under what circumstances can it be morally justifiable for the international community to apply economic sanctions that wreak serious hardship on civilians in the target state? Even though follow-up reports suggested that the headline might have to overstated the damage actually attributable to the Haitian sanctions, there can be little doubt that current sanctions programs entail at least the potential for a severe degree of civilian harm, to the point of triggering difficult moral issues.

No twentieth-century leader has had greater influence on the parallel development of both nationalism and internationalism than Woodrow Wilson. Wilson gave expression to the nationalist aspirations of peoples around the world, through is endorsement of the principle of self-determination. He also initiated the first institution that had as its objective the organization of the international community to apply concerted power in support of universal values. My task is to examine one contemporary problem – intervention – in the light of some of the themes implicit in the Wilsonian legacy. Among these themes will be the establishment (and now the invigoration) of collective organs for the achievement of community objectives; the engagement of the United States in those collective activities; the advancement of democracy through U.S. initiatives, whether alone or in combination with like-minded states; and the articulation of normative principles against which all the above activities could be measured.

Despite the seemingly uncontrollable conflicts within the boundaries of many nation-states today, the end of the Cold War has provided new opportunities to mobilize the collective will of the international community to deal with these internal disputes. One of the first books to focus on the evolution in attitudes toward intervention, Enforcing Restraint is a timely examination of the role of the international community, and the increased responsibility of the United States, in resolving internal strife where it threatens international stability. In Enforcing Restraint, eight authorities on international relations and international law examine acute cases of internal crises that provoked collective responses – Yugoslavia, Iraq, Haiti, Liberia, Somalia, and Cambodia. The authors survey options open to the international community for dealing with each crisis, including economic sanctions and the use of force. The book also addresses the role of the United Nations and regional or other subglobal organizations, the impact of sanctions on domestic populations, and the relevance of international law to the control of violence within borders. Framing the case studies are an overview of past collective action and the circumstances that provoked it and prospects for new standards of international law to be universally applied. ; https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/books/1211/thumbnail.jpg

Throughout history, decisions to go to war have been made by a handful of individuals in powerful positions. American constitutionalists from James Madison's day through our own have tried to establish a better system of deciding for war, by shifting the locus of responsibility from one person to a broadly representative group. The Persian Gulf crisis has shown all too vividly what dangers lie in the persistence of processes that put awesome amounts of force at the disposition of single individuals, and how much is at stake in developing and nurturing structures of deliberation and accountability.

To what extent should domestic courts apply international law – specifically the international law of human rights? I would like to examine this question with reference to two very different states: the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States. For quite distinct reasons, neither of the two has yet fully embraced the idea of direct application in national tribunals of the body of international law that regulates the relationship between human beings and their own governments. As the post-Cold War era unfolds, it is time to ask whether either or both of these erstwhile adversaries might finally be ready for full-fledged implementation of international human rights law in national courts. The Soviet Union is going through such profound political and constitutional change that specific comments run the risk of obsolescence or irrelevancy. In early 1991, when this Essay was in preparation, the breakup of the Union came to seem inevitable, but what will emerge cannot yet be foreseen. Retrogressive developments have cast doubt on the prospects for advancing the rule of law under the current Soviet leadership. Nonetheless, I believe that the issue of domestic application of international human rights law will survive the current tumultuous period and will figure in the disposition of transcendent constitutional issues.

As the Constitution begins its third century, the system of congressional oversight of covert action is only in its second decade. In the ancient history of covert action—before the intelligence oversight reforms of the 1970s—Congress did not involve itself in covert operations. After giving the Central Intelligence Agency standing authority to "perform such other functions and duties related to intelligence affecting the national security as the National Security Council may from time to time direct," Congress paid little attention to what the Executive did under this authority. The era of congressional noninvolvement came to an end with the Watergate disclosures of intelligence activities that many Americans found reprehensible, the ensuing investigations into assassination attempts and other controversial covert actions, and the adoption of a new statutory framework for congressional oversight of the intelligence agencies.