Publication
Minnesota Law Review
Volume
91
Page
1523
Year
2007
Abstract
Following the atrocities of September 11, 2001, the United States has activated a highly focused and high profile set of legal, political, and military responses to perceived threats to its security at home and abroad. Legal responses to the 'war on terror' have been extensive and central to this undertaking. It is a well-known truism that courts (both national and international) tend to give considerable deference to states when political or military crises are at hand. Courts usually seek to avoid direct legal confrontation with states, and if required to adjudicate on the validity of legal responses to a perceived threat, demonstrate timidity and caution. The Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision departs significantly from that general pattern.
Recommended Citation
Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, Hamdan and Common Article 3: Did the Supreme Court Get It Right?, 91 Minn. L. Rev. 1523 (2007), available at https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles/73.
