The administration’s move may invite additional restrictions on the application of a key U.S. foreign and security tool.
Elena Chachko is a doctoral candidate and Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School, and a Global Order Post-doctoral fellow at Perry World House, University of Pennsylvania. She was previously an international Security Program fellow at the Belfer Center, Harvard Kennedy School. Prior to her doctoral studies, Elena clerked for Chief Justice Asher D. Grunis on the Supreme Court of Israel. She has also worked at the United Nations Office of Counterterrorism and the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where she focused on arms control and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
The Israeli equivalent to Defend Forward is far less regulated than its U.S. parallel, and that the Israeli version of Persistent Engagement at home allows domestic action and harnesses the private sector in ways that the U.S. approach does not contemplate.
The court invoked the nondelegation doctrine to require explicit statutory authorization of electronic surveillance.
As the coronavirus pandemic rages around the world, Israel’s year-and-a-half-long constitutional crisis appears to be approaching its apex.
What does case law tell us about whether Israel’s caretaker government can move to annex new territory before an upcoming election?
Israeli politics have become inextricably entangled in Netanyahu’s legal predicament, and there is little legal clarity about what Israel’s constitutional law requires in this situation.
In the past two decades, the United States has applied a growing number of foreign and security measures directly targeting individuals—natural or legal persons. Administrative agencies have taken the lead in designing and implementing these measures. Empowered by delegations from Congress and the president, agencies largely control related fact-finding, target selection, routine management and administrative review of individualized measures.