Litigating War offers an in-depth examination of the law and procedure of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, which was tasked with deciding, through binding arbitration, claims for losses, damages, and injuries resulting from the 1998-2000 Eritrean-Ethiopian war. After providing an overview of the war, the authors describe how the Commission was established, its jurisdiction, the sources of law it applied, its treatment of nationality and evidentiary issues, and the relief it rendered. Separate chapters then address particular topics, such as the initiation of the war, battlefield conduct, belligerent occupation, aerial bombardment, prisoners of war, enemy aliens and their property, diplomats and diplomatic property, and general economic loss. A final chapter examines the lessons that might be learned from the experience of the Claims Commission, especially with an eye to the establishment of such commissions in the future. The volume includes a preface from James Crawford and also reproduces all the key documents relating to the Commission: the bilateral agreement establishing the Commission; its rules of procedure; and its numerous decisions and arbitral awards. The analytical portion of the volume contains extensive cross-references to these primary documents. Further, a comprehensive table of contents and indexes relating to subject matter, treaties, and cases provide ready access to all the material contained within.

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.

Government accountability in the nineteenth century -- Bivens and government accountability in the twentieth century -- Human rights and War on Terror litigation -- Evaluating the effectiveness of Bivens litigation -- Evaluating justifications for judicial silence -- Congressional ratification of the bivens action -- Applying Bivens to conduct outside of the United States -- Overcoming qualified immunity -- Common-law solutions to judge-made problems.

On June 28, 2004, the US Supreme Court broke with a long-standing tradition of deference to the executive in wartime national security cases and became an important actor in an armed conflict. By declining to rubber-stamp the executive branch’s actions, the judiciary would henceforth play a major role in shaping national security policies in the war on terror. After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, lawyers, lawsuits, and court decisions have repeatedly altered the landscape in the policy areas of detention and military commissions. In Courts at War Gregory Burnep explores how, after 9/11, lawyers and judges became deeply involved in an armed conflict, with important consequences for presidential authority, the separation of powers, and the treatment of individuals suspected of posing a threat to the United States. Courts at War goes beyond the post-9/11 armed conflict. It analyzes the changes in the position of courts vis-à-vis the other branches of government (courts in conflict with the executive, the legislature, or both)—even courts in conflict with other courts. The consequences included increased checks on presidential authority and greater levels of due process for suspected belligerents held in US custody. But Burnep also shows that there are unintended consequences that accompany these developments. Burnep innovatively applies an interbranch perspective to persuasively argue that litigation and judicial involvement have important implications for changing patterns of policy development in a wide range of national security policy areas, including surveillance, interrogation, targeted killings, and President Trump’s travel ban.

From Damon Root, a senior editor of Reason magazine, Overruled: The Long War for Control of the U.S. Supreme Court is “the most thorough account of the libertarian-conservative debate over judicial review...a valuable guide to both the past and the potential future of these important issues” (The Washington Post). Should the Supreme Court defer to the will of the majority and uphold most democratically enacted laws? Or does the Constitution empower the Supreme Court to protect a broad range of individual rights from the reach of lawmakers? In this timely and provocative book, Damon Root traces the long war over judicial activism and judicial restraint from its beginnings in the bloody age of slavery, the Civil War, and Reconstruction to its central role in today’s blockbuster legal battles over gay rights, gun control, and health care reform. It’s a conflict that cuts across the political spectrum in surprising ways and makes for some unusual bedfellows. Judicial deference is not only a touchstone of the Progressive left, for example, it is also a philosophy adopted by many members of the modern right. But many libertarians have no patience with judicial restraint and little use for majority rule. They want the courts and judges to police the other branches of government, and expect Justices to strike down any state or federal law that infringes on their bold constitutional agenda of personal and economic freedom. Overruled is the story of two competing visions, each one with its own take on what role the government and the courts should play in our society, a fundamental debate that goes to the very heart of our constitutional system.