Search

This review article is inspired by monograph The HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention: Cornerstones, Prospects, Outlook edited by Matthias Weller, João Ribeiro-Bidaoui, Moritz Brinkmann and Nina Dethloff (Hart Publishing, 2023), and its presentation at a conference of the same title that took place on 9–10 July 2023 in Bonn (Germany). The monograph was dedicated to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters concluded in The Hague on 2 July 2019, under the auspices of the Hague Conference of Private International Law (HCCH). The book was published four years after conclusion of the Convention and just before its entry into force on 1 September 2023. The authors of particular chapters were speakers at the aforementioned conference. The Hague Judgments Convention (2019) is just a part of the international unification of civil procedure that is progressing under the auspices of the HCCH, with particular stress being placed on the jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters. Lawyers working within the framework of the HCCH hoped for a universal convention on the jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters that would mirror the European Brussels regime. The publication is the point of departure for an analysis of the unification of law and the role of international doctrine and international organizations in that process. Selected provisions of the Convention are subject to in-depth analysis, especially those that are illustrative of modern legislative trends (like the bilateralization of multilateral international agreements)., Inspiracją tego artykułu recenzyjnego jest monografia The HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention: Cornerstones, Prospects, Outlook pod redakcją Matthiasa Wellera, João Ribeiro-Bidaoui, Moritza Brinkmanna i Niny Dethloff (Hart Publishing, 2023). Została ona zaprezentowana podczas konferencji naukowej pod tym samym tytułem, zorganizowanej w dniach 9–10 czerwca 2023 r. w Bonn. Poświęcona jest Konwencji o uznawaniu i wykonywaniu zagranicznych orzeczeń sądowych w sprawach cywilnych i handlowych zawartej 2 lipca 2019 r. pod auspicjami Haskiej Konferencji Prawa Prywatnego Międzynarodowego (HCCH). Książka została opublikowana w cztery lata po uchwaleniu Konwencji i krótko przed jej wejściem w życie 1 września 2023 r. Konwencja haska z 2019 r. jest częścią wielkiego przedsięwzięcia unifikacji międzynarodowej procedury cywilnej, realizowanego od ponad półwiecza w ramach HCCH, w szczególności problematyki jurysdykcji, uznawania i wykonywania zagranicznych orzeczeń sądowych. Ideą prawników zrzeszonych w HCCH było stworzenie powszechnej konwencji na kształt reżimu unijnego obowiązującego na podstawie rozporządzeń Bruksela I oraz Bruksela I (recast). Monografia stanowi inspirację do szerszych rozważań o procesie unifikacji prawa w skali międzynarodowej oraz roli, jaką odgrywają w nim przedstawiciele doktryny i organizacje międzyrządowe. Przedmiotem pogłębionej analizy są wybrane postanowienia umowy międzynarodowej ilustrujące najnowsze trendy w światowej praktyce konwencyjnej (np. tzw. bilateralizacja wielostronnych umów międzynarodowych).

During WWI the Czechs and Slovaks living in Austria-Hungary were reluctant to fight for the monarchy. Military units fighting in frames of French, Russian, Serbian and Italian Armies known as the Czechoslovak Legions were created since 1914. Czech and Slovak political leaders joined their efforts and convinced Entente governments to recognize autonomous Czechoslovak Army. The Legion's efforts in Russia after Brest-litovsk Peace Treaty prevented Central Powers from reinforcing the Western and Southern fronts with POWs released from Russian POW camps. A lack of manpower and coordination among Allied forces during the intervention to Northern Russia and Siberia did not allow defeat of Bolshevism in 1918 - 1920. The performance of Legionaries supported political goals and contributed to Entente's victory in WWI and to establishment of independent Czechoslovakia.

Current concepts of illegal combatant and mercenary are linked to the U.S. and their military activities, which that they hire security companies with “mercenaries” to fight against “illegal combatants”. These two concepts exist in a gray area of international law and they receive neither combatant status nor civilian status. Due there exist a discussion of the need to obtain civil status. By developing Genève Conventions, GC, and The Hague Conventions, HC, there are multilateral treaties that bind states to follow different rules for the protection of civilians and combatants (GC) and laws governing war (HC). However, the illegal combatant and mercenary are protected by the most basic human rights, necessary if they should be captured so that they obtain a humane treatment. The comparison in the paper builds on the concepts of finding similarities and differences and understand how they can exist in an grey area in the law.

Published by the Naval Justice School, the "Naval Law Review" encourages frank discussion of relevant legislative, administrative, and judicial developments in military and related fields of law. This issue of the "Naval Law Review" contains the following articles: "Defined by the Law of the Sea: 'High Seas' in the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act," by Lieutenant Commander Keith S. Gibel, JAGC, USN; "A Primer on the Nonproliferation Regime for Maritime Security Operations Forces," by Craig H. Allen; "The Vietnam War in Perspective: Lessons Learned in the Law of War as Applied in Subsequent Conflict," by Colonel James P. Terry, USMC (Ret.); "Reflections on Murder in War," by Edward F. Fogarty; "Who's in Charge Here? -- International Criminal Court Complementarity and the Commanders' Role in Courts-Martial," by Allen J. Dickerson; "Convening Authority Clemency: Is It Really an Accused's Best Chance at Relief?" by Lieutenant Michael J. Marinello, JAGC, USN; "Department of Defense's Sexual Assault Policy: Recommendations for a More Comprehensive and Uniform Policy," by Lieutenant Commander Ann M. Vallandingham, JAGC, USN; and "'Hiding Amongst a Crowd' and the Illegality of Deceptive Lighting," by Matthew G. Morris., Pub. in the Naval Law Review, n54, p1-258.

Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) are currently prominent constructs for stabilization and reconstruction in Afghanistan and Iraq. PRTs are composed of civilian-military teams, including elements from coalition partners and the host-nation, and involve multiple military services and civilian agencies. Their missions are to extend the legitimacy of the central government throughout the country and to use Civil Military Operations (CMO) to counter anti-government forces. PRTs are prominent, but controversial. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) complain that the U.S. military blurs the lines between humanitarian assistance and military operations. Other critics have called PRTs interagency failures because the U.S. Department of State (DOS), the Department of Defense (DoD), and other government agencies have not contributed the personnel, resources, or training required to make PRTs operationally functional. The result is both lack of integration and of effectiveness. The purpose of this thesis is to determine how to make PRTs more effective in the future. While host-nation participation is necessary for success, this thesis will focus only on the controversies involving NGOs and interagency communities. These include humanitarian space, general attributes, and effectiveness of PRTs. The policy prescription for future PRTs is found in the concept of a Civil Military Operations Center (CMOC), which is described in U.S. Army's FM 3-05.40, "Civil Affairs Operations." The core tasks of a CMOC, especially those of Civil Information Management (CIM), are designed to accomplish a variety of missions relating to Post-Conflict Reconstruction (PCR). They would serve well as foundational components of a PRT. Also, because of the interagency nature of PRTs, commanders of these teams must have the right character and skill sets to operate in this complex environment., The original document contains color images.

The author, James P. Terry, is a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State; former legal counsel to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; a retired colonel, U.S. Marine Corps; and, today, chairman of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, Department of Veterans Affairs. In "The Regulation of International Coercion," Colonel Terry has undertaken a major task: an assessment -- from a U.S. policy perspective and in an international-law framework -- of "representative instances where force has recently been used in international relations, the circumstances under which it was used, the instructive international policy and legal constructs that can be applied, and the relationship of these policies to the minimum world order system established in...the United Nations Charter." Chapters are as follows: Customary Law: The Relationship between Law and the Use of Force; The Minimum World Order System; Humanitarian Intervention; Defense of U.S. Nationals: Intervention in Panama; Response to International Terrorism; Operation DESERT STORM; Operation IRAQI FREEDOM; The Development of Criteria for Peace Operations; The Role of Regional Organizations in Peace-Enforcement Operations; Defense of Critical Infrastructure: Computer Network Defense; and Attacks on Foreign Infrastructure that Pose a Threat to the United States: Computer Network Attack., Naval War College Newport Paper Series, No. 25. The original document contains color images.

The University of Pennsylvania Law School, the Institute for Strategic Threat Analysis and Response, and the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College conducted a conference dealing with Homeland Security and Civil Liberties on June 18, 2004, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The event brought together experts from diverse organizations such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Armed Forces, Philadelphia Arab American Development Corporation, and several law schools. The conference examined national security issues related to civil liberties, immigration policy, privacy issues, first amendment rights, and the balance of executive and judicial power in relation to civil liberties and homeland security. Over 175 people interested in the intersection of national security, civil liberties, and associated legal issues participated in the conference. The key points can be summarized in the following sentences. The Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) is a challenge unprecedented in American history. It dictates a reexamination of the balance between national security and civil liberties to accomplish the dual goals of preventing future attacks and maintaining our commitment to the U.S. Constitution. Almost three years into the GWOT, we need to review domestic and international laws and policies to consider their continued viability and long-term implications. This includes the USA-PATRIOT Act and its interaction with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, U.S. criminal law, and international laws such as the Hague and Geneva Conventions. The tension between civil liberties and homeland security is extraordinarily complex with immigration policy, criminal law, privacy, First Amendment, and separation of powers dimensions, among others. Americans believe in their civil liberties and any compromises in them will be tolerated only to the extent absolutely necessary and for a finite period of time., Report of a conference on Homeland Security and Civil Liberties held in Philadelphia, PA, on 18 Jun 2004. The original document contains color images.

This paper will address the question of whether it would be an illegal assassination for U.S. Armed Forces to kill the leader of an enemy state during a period of armed conflict, if the United States had specifically identified the leader as a target beforehand. A review of the relevant provisions of Executive Order 12333, the Hague Conventions, the Geneva Conventions, and the United Nations Charter indicate that, during a period of armed conflict, the United States may lawfully conduct a deliberate attack on a foreign leader who also is invaluable to the enemy's armed forces. The author concludes that, with the approval of the National Command Authorities, General Norman Schwarzkopf, Commander-in-Chief of the United States Central Command, could have specifically identified Saddam Hussein as a target during the Gulf Conflict, and that the killing of the Iraqi leader by U.S. Armed Forces would not have been illegal or an assassination.

This study is primarily a treatment of the use of prisoner of war labor by the United States Army. It also provides a comprehensive treatment of the employment of prisoners of war by private employers in the United States. The primary objective of this monograph is to provide in one volume a comprehensive record of the use of prisoner of war labor for the guidance of General Staff officers and students in the Army school system. It is hoped that this study will assist the industrial and military mobilization planners of the future to provide for the use of prisoner of war labor. The material will also aid those interested in military affairs to understand some of the basic problems connected with the employment of prisoners of war.