...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of International Criminal Justice >Introduction
【24h】

Introduction

机译：介绍

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

One of the key reasons why the Bush Administration opted to create the military commissions for trying terrorism cases was the desire to use classified information without having to face the risk that in some instances the government might be faced with a dilemma — whether to reveal the classified information or drop the prosecution and free the defendant. The editorial comments published in this issue of the Journal challenge the provisions of the Military Commissions Act (MCA) 2006 under the law of war, international law, the Geneva Conventions as well as under US constitutional law. In the end, however, the legal status of the MCA will be finally determined by the US Supreme Court. It seems likely that a new majority of the Court would be formed that would uphold the constitutionality of many of the provisions of the MCA. The US approach to dealing with terrorism has consisted of a series of acts, both on the world stage and in the United States, in a continuing drama. If the events of the post-9/11 period are thought of in terms of high theatre, then the link between Hamdan and the MCA moves us into a state of dramatic tension — the Court first resolves a series of key issues, then Congress moves centre stage and on most of the issues takes contrary positions, but in a context where the Court itself has invited legislative action. The denouement will be reached when these issues return to the Supreme Court and it then decides whether the statutory provisions in question are constitutionally vulnerable.
机译：布什政府选择成立军事委员会来审理恐怖主义案件的关键原因之一是希望使用机密信息，而不必面对在某些情况下政府可能面临困境的风险-是否透露机密信息通知或放弃起诉并释放被告。在本期《杂志》上发表的社论评论对2006年《军事委员会法》（MCA）在战争法，国际法，《日内瓦公约》以及美国宪法下的规定提出了质疑。最后，MCA的法律地位最终将由美国最高法院确定。似乎将形成新的法院多数，以维持《马华协定》许多条款的合宪性。美国对付恐怖主义的方法包括一系列在世界舞台上和在美国境内发生的连续性行为。如果从高剧院的角度考虑9/11后时期的事件，那么Hamdan和MCA之间的联系将使我们进入一种戏剧性的紧张状态-法院首先解决了一系列关键问题，然后国会采取了行动在大多数问题上处于中心舞台，而在法院本身已邀请立法行动的情况下，则采取相反的立场。当这些问题返回至最高法院后，便会达成协议，然后由法院决定所涉法律规定是否在宪法上易受伤害。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号