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.

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.

A provocative history that reveals how guns—not abortion, race, or religion—are at the heart of America's cultural divide. Gunfight is a timely work examining America’s four-centuries-long political battle over gun control and the right to bear arms. In this definitive and provocative history, Adam Winkler reveals how guns—not abortion, race, or religion—are at the heart of America’s cultural divide. Using the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller—which invalidated a law banning handguns in the nation’s capital—as a springboard, Winkler brilliantly weaves together the dramatic stories of gun-rights advocates and gun-control lobbyists, providing often unexpected insights into the venomous debate that now cleaves our nation.

Explaining complex family law concepts and procedures in a jargon-free style, this resource includes detailed information on how family court works, offers easily understandable case examples, and describes alternatives to litigation that are designed to help prevent families with children from entering the legal system to resolve disputes. Exploring subjects that apply to all parties involved in resolving separation, divorce, and custody conflictsjudges, lawyers, mediators, parenting coaches, psychologists, family counselors, and social workersthis reference demystifies the role of lawyers and judges, debunks the myth that parents can represent themselves in court, and examines each parents responsibility to ensure that post-separation conflicts are resolved with minimal emotional stress to children.

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.

A Brookings Institution Press and the Hoover Institution and the Georgetown Center on National Security and the Law publication The events of September 11 and subsequent American actions irrevocably changed the political, military, and legal landscapes of U.S. national security. Predictably, many of the changes were controversial, and abuses were revealed. The United States needs a legal framework that reflects these new realities. Legislating the War on Terror presents an agenda for reforming the statutory law governing this new battle, balancing the need for security, the rule of law, and the constitutional rights that protect American freedom. The authors span a considerable swath of the political spectrum, but they all believe that Congress has a significant role to play in shaping the contours of America's confrontation with terrorism. Their essays are organized around the major tools that the United States has deployed against al Qaeda as well as the legal problems that have arisen as a result. • Mark Gitenstein compares U.S. and foreign legal standards for detention, interrogation, and surveillance. • Matthew Waxman studies possible strategic purposes for detaining people without charging them, while Jack Goldsmith imagines a system of judicially reviewed law-of-war detention. • Robert Chesney suggests ways to refine U.S. criminal law into a more powerful instrument against terrorism. • Robert Litt and Wells C. Bennett suggest the creation of a specialized bar of defense lawyers for trying accused terrorists in criminal courts. • David Martin explores the relationship between immigration law and counterterrorism. • David Kris lays out his proposals for modernizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. • Justin Florence and Matthew Gerke outline possible reforms of civil justice procedures in national security litigation. • Benjamin Wittes and Stuart Taylor Jr. investigate ways to improve interrogation laws while clarifying the definition and limits of torture. • Kenneth Anderson argues for the protection of

"[A] brilliant new book . . . Humane provides a powerful intellectual history of the American way of war. It is a bold departure from decades of historiography dominated by interventionist bromides." —Jackson Lears, The New York Review of Books A prominent historian exposes the dark side of making war more humane In the years since 9/11, we have entered an age of endless war. With little debate or discussion, the United States carries out military operations around the globe. It hardly matters who’s president or whether liberals or conservatives operate the levers of power. The United States exercises dominion everywhere. In Humane: How the United States Abandoned Peace and Reinvented War, Samuel Moyn asks a troubling but urgent question: What if efforts to make war more ethical—to ban torture and limit civilian casualties—have only shored up the military enterprise and made it sturdier? To advance this case, Moyn looks back at a century and a half of passionate arguments about the ethics of using force. In the nineteenth century, the founders of the Red Cross struggled mightily to make war less lethal even as they acknowledged its inevitability. Leo Tolstoy prominently opposed their efforts, reasoning that war needed to be abolished, not reformed—and over the subsequent century, a popular movement to abolish war flourished on both sides of the Atlantic. Eventually, however, reformers shifted their attention from opposing the crime of war to opposing war crimes, with fateful consequences. The ramifications of this shift became apparent in the post-9/11 era. By that time, the US military had embraced the agenda of humane war, driven both by the availability of precision weaponry and the need to protect its image. The battle shifted from the streets to the courtroom, where the tactics of the war on terror were litigated but its foundational assumptions went without serious challenge. These trends only accelerated during the Obama and Trump presidencies. Even as the two administrations spoke of American power and morality in radically different tones, they ushered in the second decade of the “forever” war. Humane is the story of how America went off to fight and never came back, and how armed combat was transformed from an imperfect tool for resolving disputes into an integral component of the modern condition. As American wars have become more humane, they have also become endless. This provocative book argues that this development might not represent progress at all.