Latest in War Powers
On Thursday, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel issued the following memorandum opinion on the April 2018 U.S. airstrikes against three Syrian chemical-weapons facilities.
We conducted a public opinion survey that found that Americans are sensitive to considerations of necessity, proportionality, and congressional authorization when evaluating whether the use of force is a justified response to a military threat from a foreign country. But what if the threat in question isn’t a conventional military one?
Last Wednesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee heard testimony about the Corker-Kaine AUMF proposal, S.J. Res. 59, from former State Department legal adviser John B. Bellinger and Georgetown law professor Rita M. Siemion. Sen.
We set out to design a set of surveys to measure the extent to which public opinion—or, perhaps more accurately, the public’s moral intuition—aligns with legal considerations regarding the use of force. Our results surprised us.
The New York Times editorial board thinks so.
Does Congress still have war powers?
The new draft AUMF promotes greater transparency and congressional involvement in deciding on the scope of U.S. counterterrorism operations, but it primarily serves to give Congress political leverage. As a legal matter, it leaves the president firmly in control.
What debates about the meaning and efficacy of the U.N. Charter might tell us about international law—and constitutional law.
When the United States uses military force, especially under controversial circumstances, it should explain the legal basis for its actions.
There is no apparent domestic or international legal authority for the airstrikes conducted in Syria on April 14.