Ramy prawne reżimu detencji wojskowej w prawie amerykańskim w świetle aktualnego orzecznictwa

• Authors: Stolicki Dariusz

Title variants

EN

Military detention framework in American law – analysis of current case law

• Languages of publication: PL

Abstracts

EN

The practice of military detention of persons captured during the “global war on terror” has raised controversy both in the United States and abroad. This article, being the first in a series of articles analyzing the post‑2001 case law on military detention, focuses on the basic legal framework. The principal legal basis for military detention is the 2001 Congressional Authorization of Use of Military Force against organizations responsible for 9/11 attacks. Bush and Obama Administrations’ claim that the AUMF authorizes military detention has been accepted by the Supreme Court in a 2004 case Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and codified by Congress in 2011. The article briefly considers and rejects main objections against its constitutionality. More complex are the issues raised by the application of other legal rules that potentially apply to military detention: Due Process clause of the U.S. Constitution and international law of armed conflict, but under the current D.C. Circuit case law, neither of them limits the President’s detention authority. Instead, judges decide habeas corpus claims brought by the detainees on the basis of judge‑made common law rules.

Keywords

EN

military detention; Guantanamo; “war on terror”; law of national security

• Publisher: Księgarnia Akademicka
• Journal: Politeja : Pismo Wydziału Studiów Miedzynarodowych i Politycznych Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego
• Year: 2014
• Issue: 1(27)
• Pages: 21-59

Contributors

author

Stolicki Dariusz

• Uniwersytet Jagielloński

References

• Abramowitz D., The President, the Congress, and Use of Force: Legal and Political Considerations in Authorizing Use of Force against International Terrorism, „Harvard International Law Journal” 2002, Vol. 43.
• Baker Jr. J. S., A War, Yes; against Terror, No, „Michigan State Journal of International Law” 2010, Vol. 19.
• Baty T., Morgan J. H., War. Its Conduct and Legal Results, London 1915.
• Bellia Jr. A. J., Clark B. R., The Federal Common Law of Nations, „Columbia Law Review” 2009, Vol. 109.
• Bellinger III J. B., A Counterterrorism Law in Need of Updating, „Washington Post” 2010, 26 XI, [online] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp‑dyn/content/article/2010/11/25/.html.
• Bellinger III J. B., Padmanabhan V. M., Detention Operations in Contemporary Conflicts: Four Challenges for the Geneva Conventions and Other Existing Law, „American Journal of International Law” 2011, Vol. 105, [online] http://dx.doi.org/10.5305/amerjintelaw.105.2.0201.
• Blackstone W., Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765‑1769), red. G. Sharswood, B. Field, Philadelphia 1893.
• Bradley C. A., Chevron Deference and Foreign Affairs, „Virginia Law Review” 2000, Vol. 86, [online] http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1073844.
• Bradley C. A., Goldsmith J. L., Congressional Authorization and the War on Terrorism, „Harvard Law Review” 2005, Vol. 118.
• Bradley C. A., Goldsmith J. L., Customary International Law as Federal Common Law: A Critique of the Modern Position, „Harvard Law Review” 1997, Vol. 110, [online] http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1342230.
• Bradley C. A., Goldsmith J. L., Foreign Relations Law. Cases and Materials, New York 2009.
• Bynkershoek C. van, Quaestionum juris publici libri duo (1737), Oxford 1930, Classics of International Law, 14. Publications of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Division of International Law.
• Carnahan B. M., In re Medina: Are the 1949 Geneva Conventions Self‑Executing?, „Air Force Law Review” 1987, Vol. 26.
• Cerone J., Misplaced Reliance on the „Law of War”, „New England Journal of International and Comparative Law” 2007, Vol. 14.
• Chesney R. M., Who May be Held? Military Detention through the Habeas Lens, „Boston College Law Review” 2011, Vol. 52.
• Chesney R. M., Goldsmith J. L., Terrorism and the Convergence of Criminal and Military Detention Models, „Stanford Law Review” 2008, Vol. 60.
• Coke E., Institutes of the Laws of England, in Four Parts (1628‑1644), London 1794‑1797.
• Davis K. C., An Approach to Problems of Evidence in the Administrative Process, „Harvard Law Review” 1942, Vol. 55, [online] http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1335092.
• Einspanier K. L., Burlamaqui, the Constitution, and the Imperfect War on Terror, „Georgetown Law Journal” 2008, Vol. 96.
• Elsea J. K., Grimmett R. F., Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military
• Force. Historical Background and Legal Implications, CRS Report for Congress RL31133, Washington 2011.
• Falkoff M. D., Knowles R., Bagram, Boumediene, and Limited Government, „DePaul Law Review” 2010, Vol. 59.
• Fallon R. H. [i in.], Hart and Wechsler’s The Federal Courts and the Federal System, New York 2003, University Casebook Series.
• Federal Procedure. Lawyers Edition, St. Paul 1981‑2013 (wersja elektroniczna dostępna w systemie Westlaw).
• Fischer M. P., Applicability of the Geneva Conventions to „Armed Conflict” in the War on Terror, „Fordham International Law Journal” 2007, Vol. 30.
• Fisher L., Presidential War Power, Lawrence 2004.
• Garcia M. J. [i in.], Closing the Guantanamo Detention Center. Legal Issues, CRS Report for Congress R40139, Washington 2011.
• Garraway Ch., Afghanistan and the Nature of Conflict, [w:] The War in Afghanistan. A Legal Analysis, red. M. N. Schmitt, Newport 2009, International Law Studies, 85.
• Garrett B. L., Habeas Corpus and Due Process, „Cornell Law Review” 2012, Vol. 98.
• Geltzer J. A., Decisions Detained: The Court’s Embrace of Complexity in Guantanamo‑Related Litigation, „Berkeley Journal of International Law” 2010, Vol. 29.
• Geltzer J. A., Of Suspension, Due Process, and Guantanamo: The Reach of the Fifth Amendment after Boumediene and the Relationship between Habeas Corpus and Due Process, „University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law” 2012, Vol. 14.
• Goldsmith J. L., The Terror Presidency. Law and Judgment inside the Bush Administration, New York 2007.
• Goodman R., Jinks D., International Law, U.S. War Powers, and the Global War on Terrorism, „Harvard Law Review” 2005, Vol. 118.
• Gorman S. D., In the Wake of Tragedy: The Citizens Cry Out for War, but Can the United States Legally Declare War on Terrorism?, „Penn State International Law Review” 2003, Vol. 21.
• Grimmett R. F., Authorization for Use of Military Force in Response to the 9/11 Attacks (P.L. 107‑40). Legislative History, CRS Report for Congress RS22357, Washington 2006.
• Grotius H., The Rights of War and Peace (De iure belli ac pacis, libri tres; 1620), red. R.Tuck, Indianapolis 2005.
• Hafetz J., Calling the Government to Account: Habeas Corpus in the Aftermath of Boumediene, „Wayne Law Review” 2011, Vol. 57.
• Hale M., Historia placitorum coronae. The History of the Pleas of the Crown (1736), red. S. Emlyn, E. Ingersoll, W. A. Stokes, Philadelphia 1847.
• Hawkins W., A Treatise of the Pleas of the Crown (1716), red. J. Curwood, London 1824, Making of Modern Law.
• Henkin L., Foreign Affairs and the United States Constitution, Oxford–New York 1996.
• Henkin L., International Law as Law in the United States, „Michigan Law Review” 1984, Vol. 82, [online] http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1288495.
• Hertz R., Liebman J. S., Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure, New Providence 2011.
• Hollander B. N., The President and Congress – Operational Control of the Armed Forces. „Military Law Review” 1965, Vol. 27.
• Hyde Ch. Ch., International Law, Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied by the United States, Boston 1922.
• Preux J. de, Siordet F., Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Commentary, przeł. A. P. de Heney, Geneva 1960, The Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, red. J. S. Pictet, t. 3.
• Jinks D., September 11 and the Laws of War, „Yale Journal of International Law” 2003, Vol. 28.
• Jinks D., Sloss D., Is the President Bound by the Geneva Conventions?, „Cornell Law Review” 2004, Vol. 90.
• Katz S. N., A New American Dilemma? U.S. Constitutionalism vs. International Human Rights, „University of Miami Law Review” 2003, Vol. 58.
• Keitner Ch. I., Rights beyond Borders, „Yale Journal of International Law” 2011, Vol. 36.
• Killian J. H., Costello G. A., Thomas K. R. [i in.], The Constitution of the United States of America. Analysis and Interpretation. Analysis of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States to June 28, 2002, Washington 2004, Senate Documents, 108‑17.
• Klein A., Wittes B., Preventive Detention in American Theory and Practice, „Harvard National Security Journal” 2011, Vol. 2.
• Koch Ch. H., Administrative Law and Practice, Eagan 2010.
• Koh H. H., Is International Law Really State Law?, „Harvard Law Review” 1998, Vol. 111.
• Kuhn W. E., The Terrorist Detention Review Reform Act: Detention Policy and Political Reality, „Seton Hall Legislative Journal” 2011, Vol. 35.
• Lewis G. G., Mewha J., History of Prisoner of War Utilization by the United States Army, 1776‑1945, Washington 1955, Dep’t of the Army Pamphlet, 20‑213.
• Lobel J., The Use of Force to Respond to Terrorist Attacks: The Bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan, „Yale Journal of International Law” 1999, Vol. 24.
• Marcinko M., „Status terrorysty” w świetle międzynarodowego prawa humanitarnego, [w:] Walka z terroryzmem w świetle prawa międzynarodowego, red. K. Lankosz, M. Chorośnicki, P. Czubik, Bielsko‑Biała 2005.
• McGinnis J. O., Losing the Law War: The Bush Administration’s Strategic Errors, „Georgia State University Law Review” 2008, Vol. 25.
• Mortlock D., Definite Detention: The Scope of the President’s Authority to Detain Enemy Combatants, „Harvard Law & Policy Review” 2010, Vol. 4.
• Murphy R., Radsan A. J., Due Process and Targeted Killing of Terrorists, „Cardozo Law Review” 2009, Vol. 31.
• Murphy S. D., Decision Not to Regard Persons Detained in Afghanistan as POWs, „American Journal of International Law” 2002, Vol. 96, [online] http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2693945.
• Nanda V. P., Pansius D. K., Litigation of International Disputes in U.S. Courts, Eagan 2005 (wersja elektroniczna dostępna w systemie Westlaw) (suplement 2013).
• Nesbitt N. H., Meeting Boumediene’s Challenge: The Emergence of an Effective Habeas Jurisprudence and Obsolescence of New Detention Legislation, „Minnesota Law Review” 2010, Vol. 95.
• Neuman G. L., The Extraterritorial Constitution after Boumediene v. Bush, „Southern California Law Review” 2009, Vol. 82.
• Operational Law Handbook, red. S. Condron, Charlottesville 2011.
• Oppenheim L. F. L., International Law, t. 2: War and Neutrality, London 1906.
• Parks W. H., Combatants, [w:] The War in Afghanistan. A Legal Analysis, red. M. N. Schmitt, Newport 2009, International Law Studies, 85.
• Paulsen M. S., Youngstown Goes to War, „Constitutional Commentary” 2002, Vol. 19.
• Paust J. J., War and Enemy Status after 9/11: Attacks on the Laws of War, „Yale Journal of International Law” 2003, Vol. 28.
• Posner E. A., Sunstein C. R., Chevronizing Foreign Relations Law, „Yale Law Journal” 2007, Vol. 116.
• Priester B. J., Terrorist Detention: Directions for Reform, „University of Richmond Law Review” 2009, Vol. 43.
• Ramsey M. D., The Constitution’s Text in Foreign Affairs, Cambridge (Mass.) 2007.
• Restatement of the Law, Third: Foreign Relations Law of the United States, Philadelphia 1987.
• Rosas A., The Legal Status of Prisoners of War. A Study in International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts, Helsinki 1976, Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae. Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum, 9.
• Rotunda R. D., Nowak J. E., Treatise on Constitutional Law. Substance and Procedure, St. Paul 2007.
• Shumate B. E., New Rules for a New War: The Applicability of the Geneva Conventions to al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees Captured in Afghanistan, „New York International Law Review” 2005, Vol. 18.
• Solum, L. B., Stare Decisis, Law of the Case, and Judicial Estoppel, [w:] Moore’s Federal Practice, red. D. R. Coquillette [i in.], t. 18, New York 2007.
• Sparrow T. L., Indefinite Detention after Boumediene: Judicial Trailblazing in Uncharted and Unfamiliar Territory, „Suffolk University Law Review” 2011, Vol. 44.
• Sprout H. H., Theories as to the Applicability of International Law in the Federal Courts of the United States, „American Journal of International Law” 1931, Vol. 26, [online] http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2189349.
• Stern R. L., Gressman E., Supreme Court Practice, Washington 2002.
• Stromseth J. E., Understanding Constitutional War Powers Today: Why Methodology Matters, „Yale Law Journal” 1996, Vol. 106, [online] http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/797312.
• Turns D., The Treatment of Detainees and the „Global War on Terror”: Selected Legal Issues, [w:] International Law and Military Operations, red. M. D. Carsten, Newport 2008, International Law Studies, 84.
• Vattel E. de, The Law of Nations, or, the Principles of Law of Nature (1758), red. B. Kapossy, R. Whatmore, Indianapolis 2008, Natural Law and Enlightenment Classics.
• Vazquez C. M., The Four Doctrines of Self‑Executing Treaties, „American Journal of International Law” 1995, Vol. 89, [online] http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2203933.
• Vladeck S. I., The D.C. Circuit after Boumediene, „Seton Hall Law Review” 2011, Vol. 41.
• Vladeck S. I., Insular Thinking about Habeas, „Iowa Law Review Bulletin” 2012, Vol. 97.
• Vladeck S. I., Lederman, M. S., The NDAA: The Good, the Bad, and the Laws of War – Part II, Lawfare, 31 XII 2011, [online] http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/the‑ndaa‑the‑good‑the‑bad‑and‑the‑laws‑of‑war‑part‑ii/.
• Wallach E. J., Partisans, Pirates, and Pancho Villa: How International and National Law Handled Non‑State Fighters in the „Good Old Days” before 1949 and that Approach’s Applicability to the „War on Terror”, „Emory International Law Review” 2010, Vol. 24.
• Wedgwood R., Responding to Terrorism: The Strikes against bin Laden, „Yale Journal of International Law” 1999, Vol. 24.
• Weingarten J., The Detention of Enemy Combatants Act, „Harvard Journal on Legislation” 2006, Vol. 43.
• Weisburd A. M., The Executive Branch and International Law, „Vanderbilt Law Review” 1988, Vol. 41.
• Winthrop W., Military Law and Precedents, Washington 1920, Document (United States. War Department), 1001.
• Wittes B., Chesney R. M., Reynolds L., The Emerging Law of Detention 2.0. The Guantánamo Habeas Cases as Lawmaking, Governance Studies at Brookings, Washington 2012, [online] http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/ /5/guantanamo%20wittes/ 05_guantanamo_wittes.pdf.
• Wittes B., House‑Senate Side‑by‑Side of NDAA Provisions: Part I, Lawfare, 7 XII 2011, [online] http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/house‑senate‑side‑by‑side‑of‑ndaa‑provisions‑part‑i/.
• Wittes B., Klaidman Post #1: Where that March 13 Brief Came From, Lawfare, 10 VI 2012, [online] http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/06/klaidman‑post‑1‑where‑that‑march‑13‑brief‑came‑from/.
• Wormuth F. D., Firmage E. B., To Chain the Dog of War. The War Power of Congress in History and Law, Urbana 1989.
• Wright Ch. A., Miller A. R., Federal Practice and Procedure, St. Paul 1969‑2012.
• Young E. A., Sorting Out the Debate over Customary International Law, „Virginia Journal of International Law” 2002, Vol. 42.
• Zeisberg M. A., War Powers. The Politics of Constitutional Authority, Princeton 2013.

Identifiers

DOI

10.12797/Politeja.11.2014.27.02