John B. Bellinger III is a partner in the international and national security law practices at Arnold & Porter in Washington, DC. He is also Adjunct Senior Fellow in International and National Security Law at the Council on Foreign Relations. He served as The Legal Adviser for the Department of State from 2005–2009, as Senior Associate Counsel to the President and Legal Adviser to the National Security Council at the White House from 2001–2005, and as Counsel for National Security Matters in the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice from 1997–2001.
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
On Feb. 25, Biden ordered airstrikes against targets in eastern Syria. His subsequent letter to Congress under the War Powers Resolution is notable in several ways.
Alumnae of the State Department Legal Adviser’s Office (known as “L”) are now ruling the legal world, or at least important parts of it.
Biden’s NSM-2 make some new and notable changes that reflect his administration’s focus on science, global engagement, cybersecurity and rule of law. Here’s what’s different about the new structure.
We recently contributed to an essay in the 2020 "Strategic Survey" that discusses key international legal gaps in areas relating to international security and suggests how states can work to address them.
In December 2015, I wrote a post for Lawfare entitled “Donald Trump Is a Danger to Our National Security,” in which I argued that Trump not only lacked “the qualifications to be president, he is actually endangering our national security right now by his hate-filled and divisive rhetoric.” I concluded “Donald Trump not only would be a dangerous president, he is making us less safe as a candidate.” At the time, I may have been the first national security official to write publicly that Trump was and w
I have an essay today in the Human Rights & International Criminal Law ICC Forum discussing what President Biden and the ICC Prosecutor should do to end the nasty conflict between the U.S. Government and the ICC.
Significant rulings on two doctrines—standing and scienter—show that Title III’s scope will remain unsettled for a while.