For centuries, Civil Affairs (CA) has long been called upon to facilitate stable and secure transitions from military to civilian control and from conflict to peace. Recently, CA is helping to bring together whole-of-nation elements to engage partners and mitigate conflict. In short, CA is a major national strategic capability that helps end and prevent wars. This capability along with Military Information Support (formerly Psychological Operations) and Foreign Area Officers, comprises the only part of the Joint Force specifically suited for Peace & Stability Operations as well as Engagement.

The Model Rules of Professional Conduct provides an up-to-date resource for information on legal ethics. Federal, state and local courts in all jurisdictions look to the Rules for guidance in solving lawyer malpractice cases, disciplinary actions, disqualification issues, sanctions questions and much more. In this volume, black-letter Rules of Professional Conduct are followed by numbered Comments that explain each Rule's purpose and provide suggestions for its practical application. The Rules will help you identify proper conduct in a variety of given situations, review those instances where discretionary action is possible, and define the nature of the relationship between you and your clients, colleagues and the courts.

This book begins discussion at a point where many civil–military conversations end. Hartwell identifies underlying dynamics, key issues, and challenges that civilian and military organizations encounter when negotiating their roles in real and virtual volatile environments. These include managing expectations, understanding organizational missions and cultures, building trust, and exploring different approaches to violence. The impact of applied technologies on decision making processes and interventions is discussed in terms of recent and future complex crises. Linking earlier history to current discussions, this study makes an important contribution by reframing issues and outlining strategies to avoid unintended consequences and more effectively protect civilians in future operations. While geographic focus is on the Middle East, Africa, Central Asia, and Asia-Pacific, the core issues are applicable to negotiating civil–military relationships in a wide range of environments.

Freedom in the World, the Freedom House flagship survey whose findings have been published annually since 1972, is the standard-setting comparative assessment of global political rights and civil liberties. The survey ratings and narrative reports on 195 countries and fourteen territories are used by policymakers, the media, international corporations, civic activists, and human rights defenders to monitor trends in democracy and track improvements and setbacks in freedom worldwide. The Freedom in the World political rights and civil liberties ratings are determined through a multi-layered process of research and evaluation by a team of regional analysts and eminent scholars. The analysts used a broad range of sources of information, including foreign and domestic news reports, academic studies, nongovernmental organizations, think tanks, individual professional contacts, and visits to the region, in conducting their research. The methodology of the survey is derived in large measure from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and these standards are applied to all countries and territories, irrespective of geographical location, ethnic or religious composition, or level of economic development.

United States Army in Vietnam. CMH Pub. 91-13. Draws upon previously unavailable Army and Defense Department records to interpret the part the press played during the Vietnam War. Discusses the roles of the following in the creation of information policy: Military Assistance Command's Office of Information in Saigon; White House; State Department; Defense Department; and the United States Embassy in Saigon.

In the United States, some populations suffer from far greater disparities in health than others. Those disparities are caused not only by fundamental differences in health status across segments of the population, but also because of inequities in factors that impact health status, so-called determinants of health. Only part of an individual's health status depends on his or her behavior and choice; community-wide problems like poverty, unemployment, poor education, inadequate housing, poor public transportation, interpersonal violence, and decaying neighborhoods also contribute to health inequities, as well as the historic and ongoing interplay of structures, policies, and norms that shape lives. When these factors are not optimal in a community, it does not mean they are intractable: such inequities can be mitigated by social policies that can shape health in powerful ways. Communities in Action: Pathways to Health Equity seeks to delineate the causes of and the solutions to health inequities in the United States. This report focuses on what communities can do to promote health equity, what actions are needed by the many and varied stakeholders that are part of communities or support them, as well as the root causes and structural barriers that need to be overcome.

Almost every state in the world has an army to protect it from external aggression, except in the case of Pakistan, where the relationship between the ‘state’ and the ‘army’ is in the reverse order. The Pakistan Army has the ‘state’. The army has governed the ‘state’ directly during half of its existence and in the remaining half of its history indirectly. The Pakistan Army has also ensured that other independent organs of the state—executive and the judiciary—function under its shadow. The army has another unique feature ; it runs the biggest business conglomerate that owns everything from factories and bakeries to farmland and golf courses. In 2015, the Parliament by a two-third majority handed over another responsibility to the army—trial of civilians in military courts—on the ground that the criminal justice system and the civilian judiciary are incapable of handling the cases pertaining to terrorists. As the trials in summary military courts fall short as compared to national or international fair-trial standards, the risk of serious miscarriage of justice cannot be rules out. Several armed conflicts are taking place in Pakistan in which the armed forces and its allies on war on terrorism—especially the military of the United States of America (USA)—are involved in fighting several groups of militants and terrorists. The USA as well as the Pakistan military have used lethal drones against the citizens of Pakistan. The military’s involvement on war on terror has led to devastating results in terms of loss of life, destruction of property; besides they have also been responsible for enforced disappearances, a serious crime against humanity. This book analyses the Military Justice System of Pakistan and makes an assessment of its international obligations under the international human rights law and the laws of armed conflict.