page 1
page 2
page 3
page 4
page 5
page 6
page 7
page 8
page 9
page 10
page 11
page 12
page 13
page 14
page 15
page 16

ExcerptUnited States, International Law, and the Struggle against Terrorism (Routledge, 2011)It is remarkable that in less than two years so many significant developments have taken place that concern the United States and the struggle against transnational terrorism. Perhaps the three most significant are as follows: (1) the Obama Administration's failure to reject wholesale the Bush-Cheney Administration's counterterrorism policies and practices; (2) the popular revolts sweeping the Arab world, often referred to as the "Arab spring"; and (3) the U.S. Navy Seals killing Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan. As noted in the first edition, the Obama Administration is to be commended for moving many suspected terrorists for trial in U.S. federal court. Furthermore, after a "year-long review of all detainee files," the Obama Administra-tion cleared for release over half of the 242 Guantánamo Bay prisoners still remaining when Obama took office. The Obama Administration has "repatriated, resettled or transferred" a third of these detainees. The Obama Administration has apparently carried through on the President's inauguration day promise to end torture and cruel, degrading and inhuman treatment of detained suspected Islamic terrorists, a crucial step toward restoring the moral authority of the United States. President Obama has also ordered that the infamous CIA black sites be closed. In other areas of international law, the Obama Administration has renewed U.S. efforts to cooperate with the International Criminal Court. The Administration also obtained a binding chapter VII Security Council reso-lution approving the use of force against Libya to protect the civilian population and has insisted on allies playing key leadership and combat roles, all a departure from the generally unilateral approach that had been the previous administration's hallmark, at least in its first term.On the other hand, the Obama Administration has failed to fulfill its promise to close the Guantánamo Bay detention facility. Not only has the Administration failed to do so, but has announced that it intends to detain indefinitely without trial 47 suspected Islamic terrorists. The first edition criticized the Obama Administration for appealing the 2009 U.S. federal district court decision in Maqaleh v. Gates, which had extended the right of habeas corpus to detainees who had been brought from other countries to Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan. As I feared, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed that decision, enabling the creation of yet another legal black hole to take the place of Guantánamo Bay. Given the current make-up of the Supreme Court and Justice Elena Kagan's promise to recuse herself in all cases in which she was involved as the Solicitor General, the Court of Appeals ruling will almost certainly stand for years to come.Congress has also contributed to the violation of international law by prohibiting the use of funds from the Defense Authorization Act to transport GITMO detainees to the United States for trial and prosecution. This legislation, if not found unconstitutional, in effect prohibits trying any GITMO detainee in U.S. federal courts. The legislation contributes to GITMO detainees being tried by military commissions, special courts which do not comport with the Geneva Conventions. The legislation also prohibits the use of federal funds to transfer any detainee to any foreign country unless certain oner-ous criteria are met. In cases in which the Administration wishes to release a detainee, the only option is to find a country that is willing to accept that person. Congress's rigid rules will make that process-already a difficult one-increasingly hard to accomplish. Consequently, the Congressional legislation will abet prolonged, if not indefinite detention of individuals whom the Executive has concluded are entitled to freedom.Perspectives Fall 2011 7

Darren Rosenblum Professor of Law BA, University of Pennsylvania JD, University of Pennsylvania Law School  MIA, Columbia UniversityDarren Rosenblum's scholarship delves into the unexplored territory of international law and gender. One of the most respected experts on gender law, Rosenblum advocates for the expansion of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) beyond just "women." In his article, "Unsex CEDAW, or What's Wrong with Women's Rights," featured in the Co-lumbia Journal of Gender and Law, he argues that the true power of CEDAW will be realized only when the bounds of gender are removed.Rosenblum has been published extensively, both in public law and corporate contexts, on various topics in internation-al and comparative gender and sexual equality. His work includes "Rethinking International Women's Human Rights through Eve Sedgwick" (Harvard Journal of Law and Gen-der, 2010); "Feminizing Capital: A Corporate Imperative" (Berkeley Business Law Journal, 2010); and "Internalizing Gender: Why International Law Theory Should Adopt Comparative Methods" (Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 2007).Prior to joining the faculty of Pace Law School, Rosenblum was in private practice, focusing on international arbitra-tion, as well as antitrust and securities litigation. In July 2011, he was awarded the prestigious Fulbright Research Scholarship at Université de Versailles St Quentin en Yvelines in Paris, France. There he is working on his study, "Gender Balance, Equality and the French Corporate Board Quota: A Comparative Analysis," an examination of a recently-passed French law requiring gender quotas on the boards of publically-traded companies.Unsex CEDAW, or What's Wrong with "Women's Rights"Women's lives" cannot be improved until being a "woman" or a "man," or for that matter one of the many other sexes that exist, means less in terms of social, legal, and political standing.""8 Pace Law School