As the U.S. transitions to a new administration, it is important to reflect on the Trump administration’s approach to NATO and evaluate whether the treaty itself provides legal mechanisms to address current issues within the alliance.
Latest in NATO
Since a lethal airstrike against Turkish forces in Syria on Feb. 27, speculation has been rife as to whether Turkey could request military assistance under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. At least for now, such speculation is misplaced.
A new Lawfare Institute e-book, "The Troubled U.S.-NATO Relationship,” is now available on Kindle.
What underlying tensions within NATO have contributed to recent difficulties in the alliance? How has President Trump’s strikingly different approach than his predecessors spurred or exacerbated these troubles? And what legal issues come into play as the relationship struggles?
Finding the grains of truth in the French president's controversial assessment of NATO.
At the end of June, Canadian Defense Minister Harjit Sajjan announced that his country will continue to command NATO Mission Iraq (NMI) until November 2020, rather than handing off leadership to another country in November of this year, as had been previously planned.
In a new Washington Quarterly article titled “Presidential Alliance Powers,” we wrestle with a subject that has become familiar in these pages: the chief executive’s ability to dismantle American alliances. We argue that although many Trump foreign policy critics worry that his disdain for American alliances such as NATO might lead him to withdraw the United States, the more subtle, probable and already-manifest danger is that he weakens U.S. alliances from within.
Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared on Order from Chaos.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy visited Brussels on June 4 and 5, where he met with the leadership of the European Union and NATO. He reaffirmed Kyiv’s goal of integrating into both institutions—goals enshrined earlier this year as strategic objectives in Ukraine’s constitution.
On March 13 and 14, a German court considered two challenges to the U.S. drone program in the Middle East and East Africa. Both cases, brought before the Higher Administrative Court of North Rhine-Westphalia in Münster, assert that Germany bears legal responsibility for the consequences of U.S.-led drone strikes in Yemen and Somalia that were conducted from the U.S. Air Force’s Ramstein base, located in southwestern Germany.
Yesterday, Mar. 28, I had the pleasure of moderating an incredibly interesting panel discussion at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law (ASIL). The focus of the discussion was S.J. Res. 4, a real law introduced this past January by a bipartisan coalition of Senators, led by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.). Modeled on a proposal I outlined in Lawfare last summer, S.J. Res.
The former Republic of Macedonia recently changed its official name to the Northern Republic of Macedonia (or, herein, North Macedonia).