Christopher Mirasola is a JD/MPP candidate at Harvard Law School and the Kennedy School of Government, where he studies America's strategic posture in the Asia-Pacific. Prior to graduate school he worked in mainland China for over two years, much of that time focused on the Chinese legal system. Chris is currently an Executive Editor of the Harvard International Law Journal and has held a legal internship at the Naval War College and Department of Defense Office of General Counsel (International Affairs).
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
On April 12, the High Court of Ireland referred 11 questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the legality of data transfers between Facebook’s Irish and U.S. corporate entities.
On March 15, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned five Russian entities and nineteen individuals for “malign” cyber activity, “including their attempted interference in U.S. elections, destructive cyber-attacks, and intrusions targeting critical infrastructure.” This most recent round of sanctions is interesting for at least two reasons.
In recent years China has crafted a significant body of domestic cybersecurity laws, regulations and standards.
After four years of negotiation, the European Parliament approved the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on April 14, 2016. Enforcement is scheduled to begin May 25. This post provides a high-level summary of what the GDPR requires, how it differs from past EU data regulations and what it means for how data is handled outside the EU.
What the GDPR Does
Earlier this month, Quinta Jurecic noted a suit filed by the nonprofit Protect Democracy under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to obtain the Trump administration’s legal justification behind U.S. airstrikes in Syria during April 2017. This post summarizes the ongoing battle over the release, in particular, of a legal memorandum (and related documents) provided to the National Security Advisor on the legality of the administration’s missile strike.
Last week, the military commission in United States v. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed et al., which relates to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, convened for the first time in several weeks for hearings and testimony relating to several pending motions.
Military judge James Pohl, the government, and the Walid Bin’Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali al-Bahlul, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, and Mustafa al-Hawsawi defense teams returned to continue plowing through discovery motions last week. During two days of nonclassified argumentation, the defendants in U.S. v Khalid Sheikh Mohammed et al. argued that the government has delayed, denied, and/or destroyed discovery documents.