Organizacyjne i personalne ramy „globalnej wojny z terroryzmem” w świetle orzecznictwa sądów amerykańskich

Keywords: military detention, terrorism, Guantanamo, al‑Bihani v. Obama, global war on terror

Abstract

The Organizational and Personal Framework of the “Global War on Terror” in the Light of the Decisions of the United States Courts
The article analyses the law of military detention applicable to the ongoing conflict with Al‑Qaeda and associated forces, to the extent that that law emerges from the jurisprudence of U.S. federal courts, and particularly of the D.C. Circuit. It discusses four major issues: the types of organizations against which military force can be used in accordance with the Congressional authorization, the range of persons subject to military detention in connection with such use of force (in terms of both legal categories and factual predicates), the scope of the battlefield on which the use of force is authorized, and the extent to which American citizens or foreigners lawfully present in the U.S. territory enjoy special immunity from military detention. The article concludes that the impact of the D.C. Circuit decisions on those questions extends beyond the issue of military detention, and provides the general legal framework applicable to other military operations directed against terrorist organizations in the Middle East, such as target strikes or the campagin against the self‑styled Islamic State.

Author Biography

Dariusz Stolicki

Doktorant w Katedrze Konstytucjonalizmu i Ustrojów Państwowych Instytutu Nauk Politycznych i Stosunków Międzynarodowych Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Jego zainteresowania badawcze koncentrują się na prawie publicznym i polityce Stanów Zjednoczonych, matematyce wyborczej oraz studiach normatywnych i empirycznych nad legislaturami.

References

I. Materiały drukowane:

Literatura źródłowa:

– akty prawne:

• A Joint Resolution Authorizing the President to Employ the Armed Forces of the United States for Protecting the Security of Formosa, the Pescadores and Related Positions and Territories of that Area, Pub. L. No. 84‑4, 69 Stat. 7 (1955).

• A Joint Resolution to Promote Peace and Stability in the Middle East, Pub. L. No. 85‑7, 71 Stat. 5 (1957).

• An Act Authorizing the Employment of the Land and Naval Forces of the United States, in Cases of Insurrections, Mar. 3, 1807, 9th Cong., 2nd Sess., c. 39, 2 Stat. 443 (1807).

• An Act to Protect the Commerce of the United States, and Punish the Crime of Piracy, Mar. 3, 1819, 15th Cong., 2nd Sess., c. 77, § 2, 3 Stat. 510 (1819).

• Authorization for Use of Military Force, Sept. 18, 2001, Pub. L. No. 107‑40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001) (50 U.S.C. § 1541 note).

• Declaration Concerning the Laws of Naval War (London Declaration), Feb. 26, 1909, 208 Consol. T.S. 338 (1909).

• Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non‑Citizens in the War Against Terrorism, Presidential Military Order, 66 Fed.Reg. 57,833, 13 XI 2001.

• Executive Order 13,492, Review and Disposition of Individuals Detained at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and Closure of Detention Facilities, 74 Fed. Reg. 4893, 27 I 2009.

• Executive Order 13,493, Review of Detention Policy Options, 74 Fed. Reg. 4901, 27 I 2009.

• Executive Order 13,823, Presidential Executive Order on Protecting America Through Lawful Detention of Terrorists, 83 Fed. Reg. 4831, 30 I 2018.

• Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Aug. 12, 1949, art. 2 cl. 1, 6 U.S.T. 3316, T.I.A.S. No. 3364 (1949).

• Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, Pub. L. No. 88‑408, 78 Stat. 384 (1964).

• Implementation of Combatant Status Review Tribunal Procedures for Enemy Combatants Detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba, Deputy Secretary of Defense, 14 VII 2006.

• Military Commissions Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109‑366, 120 Stat. 2600 (2006).

• Military Commissions Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111‑84, Div. A, Title XVIII, 123 Stat. 2190, 2574 (2009) (10 U.S.C. ch. 47a).

• National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2012, Pub. L. No. 112‑81, § 1021, 125 Stat. 1298 (2011) (10 U.S.C. § 801 note).

• Non‑Detention Act of 1971, Pub. L. No. 92‑128, 85 Stat. 347 (1971) (18 U.S.C. § 4001(a)).

• Order Establishing Combatant Status Review Tribunal, Deputy Secretary of Defense, 7 VII 2004.

– wyroki:

• Al Ginco v. Obama, 626 F. Supp. 2d 123 (D.D.C. 2009).

• Al Odah v. United States, 648 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2009), aff ’d, 611 F.3d 8 (D.C. Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 1812 (2011).

• Al‑Adahi v. Obama, 613 F.3d 1102 (D.C. Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1001 (2011).

• Al‑Aulaqi v. Obama, 727 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2010).

• Al‑Bihani v. Obama, 590 F.3d 866 (D.C. Cir. 2010), en banc rehearing denied, 619 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1814 (2011).

• Al‑Bihani v. Obama, 619 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1814 (2011).

• Al‑Marri ex rel. Berman v. Wright, 378 F. Supp. 2d 673 (D.S.C. 2005), rev’d sub. nom. al‑Marri v. Pucciarelli, 534 F.3d 213 (4th Cir. 2005) (en banc), vacated sub nom. al‑Marri v. Spagone with instructions to dismiss as moot, 555 U.S. 1220 (2009).

• Al‑Marri v. Bush, 274 F. Supp. 2d 1003 (C.D.Ill. 2003), aff ’d, 360 F.3d 707 (7th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 809 (2004).

• Al‑Marri v. Pucciarelli, 534 F.3d 213 (4th Cir. 2008) (en banc), vacated sub nom. al‑Marri v. Spagone with instructions to dismiss as moot, 555 U.S. 1220 (2009).

• Al‑Marri v. Wright, 487 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 2007), superseded on reh’g sub. nom. al‑Marri v. Pucciarelli, 534 F.3d 213 (4th Cir. 2008) (en banc), vacated sub nom. al‑Marri v. Spagone with instructions to dismiss as moot, 555 U.S. 1220 (2009).

• Almerfedi v. Obama, 654 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 2739 (2012).

• Anam v. Obama, 653 F. Supp. 2d 62 (D.D.C. 2009).

• Awad v. Obama, 608 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1814 (2011) 18, 20, 21.

• Awad v. Obama, 646 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D.D.C. 2009), aff ’d, 608 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 1814 (2011).

• Barhoumi v. Obama, 609 F.3d 416 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

• Bensayah v. Obama, 610 F.3d 718 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

• Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 128 S.Ct. 2229, 171 L.Ed.2d 41 (2008).

• Boumediene v. Bush, 583 F. Supp. 2d 133 (D.D.C. 2008).

• Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984).

• Chicago & S. Air Lines v. Waterman S.S. Corp, 333 U.S. 103, 68 S.Ct. 431, 92 L.Ed. 568 (1948).

• Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 91 S.Ct. 814, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971).

• Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 52 S.Ct. 285, 76 L.Ed. 598 (1932).

• Doe v. Mattis, No. 17‑cv‑2069 (TSC), Mem. Op., s. 2–4 (D.D.C. Dec. 23, 2017).

• Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866).

• Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 63 S. Ct. 2, 87 L. Ed. 3 (1942).

• Gherebi v. Obama, 609 F. Supp. 2d 43 (D.D.C. 2009).

• Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 126 S.Ct. 2749, 165 L.Ed.2d 723 (2006).

• Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 316 F.3d 450, 185 A.L.R. Fed. 751 (4th Cir. 2003), reh’g en banc denied, 337 F.3d 335, vacated and remanded, 542 U.S. 507 (2003).

• Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 124 S. Ct. 2633, 159 L. Ed. 2d 578 (2004).

• Hamlily v. Obama, 616 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D.D.C. 2009).

• Hanft v. Padilla, 546 U.S. 1084, 126 S.Ct. 978, 163 L.Ed.2d 721 (2006) (mem. order).

• Hatim v. Gates, 632 F.3d 720 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (per curiam).

• Hatim v. Obama, 677 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2009), vacated sub nom. Hatim v. Gates, 632 F.3d 720 (D.C.Cir. 2011).

• Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 130 S.Ct. 2705, 177 L.Ed.2d 355, 49 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 567 (2010).

• J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394, 48 S.Ct. 348, 72 L.Ed. 624 (1928).

• Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 70 S. Ct. 936, 94 L. Ed. 1255 (1950).

• Khan v. Obama, 741 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2010).

• Lichter v. United States, 334 U.S. 742, 68 S.Ct. 1294, 92 L.Ed. 1694 (1948).

• Mattan v. Obama, 618 F. Supp. 2d 24 (D.D.C. 2009).

• Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491, 128 S.Ct. 1346, 170 L.Ed.2d 190 (2008).

• Padilla ex rel. Newman v. Bush, 233 F. Supp. 2d 564 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), opinion adhered to on reconsideration, 243 F. Supp. 2d 42, motion to certify appeal granted, 256 F. Supp. 2d 218, aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 352 F.3d 695 (2nd Cir. 2003), rev’d and remanded, 542 U.S. 426 (2004).

• Padilla v. Hanft, 389 F. Supp. 2d 678 (D.S.C. 2005), rev’d, 423 F.3d 386 (4th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1062, 126 S.Ct. 1649 (2006) (mem.).

• Padilla v. Hanft, 423 F.3d 386 (4th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1062, 126 S.Ct. 1649 (2006) (mem.).

• Padilla v. Rumsfeld, 352 F.3d 695 (2nd Cir. 2003), rev’d and remanded, 542 U.S. 426 (2004).

• Parhat v. Gates, 532 F.3d 834 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

• Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 124 S. Ct. 2686, 159 L. Ed. 2d 548 (2004).

• Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 77 S. Ct. 1222, 1 L. Ed. 2d 1148 (1957).

• Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 124 S.Ct. 2711, 159 L.Ed.2d 513 (2004).

• Salahi v. Obama, 625 F.3d 745 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

• Skinner v. Mid‑America Pipeline Co., 490 U.S. 212, 109 S.Ct. 1726, 104 L.Ed.2d 250 (1989).

• United States v. al‑Marri, No. 09‑CR‑10030, Plea Agreement and Stipulation of Facts (C.D. Ill. Apr. 30, 2009) (guilty plea).

• United States v. Jayyousi, 657 F.3d 1085, 86 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 745 (11th Cir. 2011), rehg. en banc denied, 452 Fed.Appx. 943, cert. denied, 133 S.Ct. 29 (2012).

• United States v. Khadr, 717 F. Supp. 2d 1215 (U.S.C.M.C.R. 2007).

• United States v. Lash, 937 F.2d 1077 (6th Cir. 1991).

• United States v. Mardian, 546 F.2d 973 (D.C. Cir. 1976).

• United States v. Zimmer, 299 F.3d 710 (8th Cir. 2002).

• Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190, 8 S.Ct. 456, 31 L.Ed. 386 (1888).

– opinie prawne:

• Bybee J. S., Determination of Enemy Belligerency and Military Detention, 26 Op. O.L.C., 2002 WL 34482990, 8 VI 2002 (preliminary print).

• Bybee J. S., Re: The President’s Power as Commander in Chief to Transfer Captured Terrorists to the Control and Custody of Foreign Nations, 26 Op. O.L.C., 2002 WL 34482991, 13 III 2002 (preliminary print).

• Philbin P. F., Legality of the Use of Military Commissions to Try Terrorists, 25 Op. O.L.C., 2001 WL 36175681, 6 XI 2001 (preliminary print).

• Rehnquist W. H., The President and the War Power: South Vietnam and the Cambodian Sanctuaries, 1 Op. O.L.C. (Supp.) 321, 22 V 1970.

• Yoo J. C., Applicability of 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a) to Military Detention of United States Citizens, 26 Op. O.L.C., 2002 WL 34482988, 27 VI 2002 (preliminary print).

– materiały legislacyjne:

• Bush G. W., Message from the President Transmitting a Draft of Proposed Legislation Entitled The “Military Commissions Act of 2006”, H. Doc. No. 109‑33, 109th Cong., 2nd Sess., 6 IX 2006.

• House Committee on the Judiciary, Report to Accompany H.R. 234 (Criminal Procedure – Detention Camps), H.R. Rep. No. 92‑116,

nd Cong., 1st Sess., 6 IV 1971, 1971 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1435.

• Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Hearings on Authorization for Use of Military Force after Iraq and Afghanistan, 21 V 2014.

• Preston S. W., Prepared Statement on the Framework Under U.S. Law for Current Military Operations, [w:] Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Hearings on Authorization for Use of Military Force after Iraq and Afghanistan, 21 V 2014.

– pisma procesowe:

• Brief for the Respondents, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Docket No. 03‑6696, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) (29 III 2004).

• Brief of Amici Curiae Specialists in the Law of War in Support of Petitioner, al‑Marri v. Wright, No. 06‑7427, 487 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 2007) (20 XI 2006).

• Complaint (Docket #1), Hedges v. Obama, No. 12 Civ. 331 (KBF), 2012 WL 3999839 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (13 I 2012).

• Defense Motion to Dismiss Because the Convening Authority Exceeded His Powers in Referring the Case to the Commission (Docket #AE 104), United States v. Al‑Nashiri (U.S. Mil. Comm. 2012) (30 VIII 2012).

• Government’s Response to Defense Motion to Dismiss (Docket #AE 104 B), United States v. Al‑Nashiri (U.S. Mil. Comm. 2012) (13 IX 2012).

• Letter from Sharon Swingle of the Justice Department’s Civil Division to the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Bensayah v. Obama, No. 08‑5537, 610 F.3d 718 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (22 IX 2009).

• Opposition to the Plaintiff ’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. Rule of Civ. Proc. 12(b)(1) (Docket #15‑1), Al‑Aulaqi v. Obama, Civ. A. No. 10‑cv‑1469, 727 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C.

(25 IX 2010).

• Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Boumediene v. Bush, No. 06‑1195, 553 U.S. 723 (2008)

(5 III 2007).

• Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Docket. No. 4, Doe v. Mattis, No. 17‑cv‑2069 (TSC) (D.D.C. 2017) (5 X 2017).

• Reply Brief for the Boumediene Petitioners, Boumediene v. Bush, No. 06‑1195, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) (13 XI 2007).

• Respondents’ Memorandum Regarding the Government’s Detention Authority Relative to Detainees Held at Guantanamo Bay (Docket #1690), In Re: Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litigation, Misc. No. 08‑442 (TFH), 05‑0763 ( JDB) & consolidated cases, 616 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D.D.C. 2009) (13 III 2009).

– stenogramy rozpraw:

• Transcript of Motion Hearing Held on Dec. 1, 2004, before Judge Joyce Hens Green, Re: Motion to Dismiss (Docket #134), In Re Guantanamo Detainee Cases, Nos. Civ.A. 02‑cv‑0299 (CKK) & al., 355 F. Supp. 2d 443 (D.D.C. 2004) (7 XII 2004).

• Transcript of Motions Hearing Before the Hon. Tanya S. Chutkan, U.S. District Judge, Nov. 30, 2017, Doe v. Mattis, No. 17‑cv‑2069 (TSC) (D.D.C. 2017) (5 XII 2017).

• Transcript of Oral Argument, Pt. 1, Hatim v. Gates, No. 10‑5048, 632 F.3d 720 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (15 II 2011).

– sprawozdania i raporty:

• Guantanamo Review Task Force, Final Report, 22 I 2010, [online] https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2010/06/02/guantanamo‑review‑final‑report.pdf.

– stenogramy wystąpień publicznych:

• Johnson J., General Counsel, U.S. Dep’t of Defense, National Security Law, Lawyers and Lawyering in the Obama Administration, Speech at Yale Law School, New Haven [CT], 22 II 2012, [online] https://www.cfr.org/defense‑and‑security/jeh‑johnsons‑speech‑national‑security‑law‑lawyers‑lawyering‑obama‑administration/p27448.

• Preston S. W., Remarks by the General Counsel of the Department of Defense on the Legal Framework for the United States’ Use of Military Force Since 9/11, Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law, Washington, D.C. 10 IV 2015.

Literatura pomocnicza:

– monografie i opracowania:

• Garner B. A. et al., The Law of Judicial Precedent, St. Paul, MN 2016.

• Department of Defense Law of War Manual, U.S. Department of Defense, Airlington, VA 2015.

• Ely J. H., War and Responsibility, Princeton, NJ 1993.

• LaFave W. R., Substantive Criminal Law, Eagan, MN 2003.

• Laidler P., Sąd Najwyższy Stanów Zjednoczonych Ameryki: od prawa do polityki, Kraków 2011.

• Neff S. C., Justice in Blue and Gray: A Legal History of the Civil War, Cambridge, MA 2010.

• Operational Law Handbook, red. S. Condron, Charlottesville, VA 2011.

• Oppenheim L. F. L., International Law, London 1906.

• Rae J. D., Crist J., Analyzing the Drone Debates: Targeted Killings, Remote Warfare, and Military Technology, New York 2014.

• Stern R. L., Gressman E., Supreme Court Practice, Washington, D.C. 2002.

• Szpak A., Bezpośredni udział w działaniach zbrojnych w świetle międzynarodowego prawa humanitarnego, Toruń 2013.

• The Juridicial Basis of the Distinction between Lawful Combatant and Unprivileged Belligerent, The Judge Advocate General’s School, U.S. Army, Charlottesville, VA 1959.

– prace zbiorowe:

• Targeted Killings: Law and Morality in an Asymmetrical World, red. C. Finkelstein, J. D. Ohlin, A. Altman, Oxford 2012.

– rozdziały w pracach zbiorowych:

• Balcerzak M., Terroryzm a międzynarodowe prawo humanitarne – kilka refleksji, [w:] Międzynarodowe prawo humanitarne we współczesnym świecie. Osiągnięcia i wyzwania, red. T. Jasudowicz, Toruń 2007.

• Barcik J., Prawnomiędzynarodowe aspekty dotyczące organu właściwego do sądzenia terrorystów, [w:] Współczesny wymiar terroryzmu: konferencja naukowa, Zielonka, 5 października 2006 r., red. Z. Piątek, Warszawa 2006.

• Bieńczyk‑Missala A., Grenich P., Międzynarodowe prawo humanitarne w świetle współczesnych konfliktów zbrojnych, [w:] Stosunki międzynarodowe w XXI wieku. Księga jubileuszowa z okazji 30‑lecia Instytutu Stosunków Międzynarodowych Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, red. E. Haliżak et al., Warszawa 2006.

• Chesney R. M., The Use of Force Regime and Unconventional Threats: Anwar al‑Awlaki as a Case Study, [w:] Counterinsurgency Law: New Directions in Asymmetric Warfare, red. W. C. Banks, Oxford–New York 2013.

• Latacz M., Dopuszczalność wykorzystania wybranych form walki z terroryzmem z punktu widzenia praw podstawowych, [w:] Oblicza współczesnego terroryzmu, red. G. Libor, Będzin 2016.

• Makieła M., Wojna z terroryzmem a traktowanie jeńców wojennych, [w:] Wybrane aktualne problemy międzynarodowego prawa humanitarnego, red. M. Lubiszewski, T. Jasudowicz, R. Fordoński, Olsztyn 2005.

• Malendowski W., Status „wrogich bojowników” uwięzionych w amerykańskiej bazie wojskowej w Guantanamo, [w:] Amerykomania: Księga jubileuszowa prof. dr hab. Andrzeja Mani, t. 2, red. W. Bernacki, A. Walaszek, Kraków 2009.

• Marcinko M., „Nielegalny kombatant” – problem z definicją, [w:] Międzynarodowe prawo humanitarne konfliktów zbrojnych. Wyzwania XXI wieku, red. D. R. Bugajski, Gdynia 2008.

• Marcinko M., „Status terrorysty” w świetle międzynarodowego prawa humanitarnego, [w:] Walka z terroryzmem w świetle prawa międzynarodowego, red. K. Lankosz, P. Czubik, M. Chorośnicki, Bielsko‑Biała 2004.

• Marcinko M., Direct Participation in Hostilities and Respect for the Lives of Civilians During Armed Conflicts, [w:] Promoting Changes in Times of Transition and Crisis: Reflections on Human Rights Education, red. K. Mazur, P. Musiewicz, B. Szlachta, Kraków 2013, [online] https://www.doi.org/10.12797/9788376383651.31.

• Mizerski R., W ogniu „wojny z terroryzmem”: o statusie kombatanta, [w:] Wybrane aktualne problemy międzynarodowego prawa humanitarnego, red. M. Lubiszewski, T. Jasudowicz, R. Fordoński, Olsztyn 2005.

• Parks W. H., Combatants, [w:] The War in Afghanistan: A Legal Analysis, red. M. N. Schmitt, Newport, RI 2009.

• Szpak A., „Wojna z terroryzmem” jako zagrożenie dla międzynarodowego pokoju i bezpieczeństwa XXI wieku, [w:] Current Challenges to Peacebuilding Efforts and Development Assistance, red. K. Pędziwiatr, P. Kugiel, A. Dańda, Kraków 2011.

– artykuły w czasopismach naukowych:

• Azoulay R., ISIS: Past, Present, and Future, „Przegląd Strategiczny” 2016, nr 9, [online] https://www.doi.org/10.14746/ps.2016.1.12.

• Baker J. S. Jr., A War, Yes; Against Terror, No., „Michigan State Journal of International Law” 2011, vol. 19, nr 1.

• Barcik J., Status prawny Talibów i członków al.‑Qaedy zatrzymanych przez władze USA, „Państwo i Prawo” 2003, nr 1.

• Benson J. T., International Laws‑of‑War, What are They Good For? The District of Columbia Circuit in Al‑Bihani v. Obama Correctly Clarified That International Laws‑of‑War do Not Limit the President’s Authority to Detain Enemy Combatants, „Creighton Law Review” 2011, vol. 44.

• Bernatt M., Kontrola sądowa nad interpretacją prawa dokonaną przez organy władzy wykonawczej (perspektywa amerykańska), „Państwo i Prawo” 2015, nr 6.

• Bradley C. A., Chevron Deference and Foreign Affairs, „Virginia Law Review” 2000, vol. 86, nr 4.

• Bradley C. A., Goldsmith J. L., Congressional Authorization and the War on Terrorism, „Harvard Law Review” 2005, vol. 118, nr 7.

• 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, nr 4.

• Brooks R. E., War Everywhere: Rights, National Security Law, and the Law of Armed Conflict in the Age of Terror, „University of Pennsylvania Law Review” 2004, vol. 153.

• Cassidy R. M., Massing G. I., The Model Penal Code’s Wrong Turn: Renunciation as a Defense to Criminal Conspiracy, „Florida Law Review” 2012, vol. 64, nr 2.

• Chang K. S., Enemy Status and Military Detention in the War Against Al‑Qaeda, „Texas International Law Journal” 2011, vol. 47, nr 1.

• Chesney R. M., Beyond the Battlefield, Beyond Al Qaeda: The Destabilizing Legal Architecture of Counterterrorism, „Michigan Law Review” 2013, vol. 112.

• Chesney R. M., Goldsmith J. L., Terrorism and the Convergence of Criminal and Military Detention Models, „Stanford Law Review” 2008, vol. 60, nr 4.

• Chesney R. M., Who May be Held? Military Detention Through the Habeas Lens, „Boston College Law Review” 2011, vol. 52, nr 3.

• Corn G. S., Thinking the Unthinkable: Has the Time Come to Offer Combatant Immunity to Non‑State Actors?, „Stanford Law & Policy Review” 2011, vol. 22, nr 1.

• Farrant J., Modern Maritime Neutrality Law, „International Law Studies” 2014, vol. 90.

• Fitzpatrick J., Jurisdiction of Military Commissions and the Ambiguous War on Terrorism,

„American Journal of International Law” 2002, vol. 96, nr 2.

• Greenwood C., War, Terrorism, and International Law, „Current Legal Problems” 2004, vol. 56.

• Grzebyk P., Pojęcia „osoba cywilna” oraz „bezpośredni udział w działaniach zbrojnych” (wytyczne Międzynarodowego Komitetu Czerwonego Krzyża), „Państwo i Prawo” 2012, nr 2.

• Heller K. J., The Law of Neutrality Does Not Apply to the Conflict with Al‑Qaeda, and It’s a Good Thing, Too: A Response to Chang, „Texas International Law Journal” 2011, vol. 47, nr 1.

• Kleffner J. K., From „Belligerents” to „Fighters” and Civilians Directly Participating in Hostilities – on the Principle of Distinction in Non‑International Armed Conflicts One Hundred Years After the Second Hague Peace Conference, „Netherlands International Law Review” 2007, vol. 54, nr 2, [online] https://www.doi.org/10.1017/S0165070X07003154.

• Klein A., The End of al Qaeda? Rethinking the Legal End of the War on Terror, „Columbia Law Review” 2010, vol. 110, nr 7.

• Kułaga Ł., Używanie dronów w celu zwalczania międzynarodowego terroryzmu w świetle „ius ad bellum”, „Zeszyty Prawnicze” 2016, vol. 16, z. 2.

• Kułaga Ł., Używanie dronów w celu zwalczania międzynarodowego terroryzmu w świetle „ius in bello”, „Zeszyty Prawnicze” 2016, vol. 17, z. 1.

• Lewis M. W., Drones and the Boundaries of the Battlefield, „Texas International Law Journal” 2012, vol. 46, nr 2.

• Linzer P., The Meaning of Certiorari Denials, „Columbia Law Review” 1979, vol. 79, nr 7.

• Lizis Ł., Military commissions w walce z terroryzmem międzynarodowym – aspekty prawne, „Bezpieczeństwo. Teoria i Praktyka” 2015, nr 3(20).

• LoGaglio G., Crisis With ISIS: Using ISIS’s Development to Analyze „Associated Forces” Under the AUMF, „National Security Law Brief ” 2014, vol. 5, nr 1.

• Melzer N., Int’l Comm. of the Red Cross, Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law, „International Review of the Red Cross” 2008, vol. 90, nr 872.

• 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, nr 3.

• O’Connell M. E., The Legal Case Against the Global War on Terror, „Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law” 2004, vol. 36.

• Paust J. J., Post‑9/11 Overreaction and Fallacies Regarding War and Defense, Guantanamo, the Status of Persons, Treatment, Judicial Review of Detention, and Due Process in Military Commissions, „Notre Dame Law Review” 2004, vol. 79, nr 4.

• Pearlman A. R., Meaningful Review and Process Due: How Guantanamo Detention is Changing the Battlefield, „Harvard National Security Journal” 2015, vol. 6.

• Posner E. A., Vermeule A., Interring the Nondelegation Doctrine, „University of Chicago Law Review” 2001, vol. 69.

• Solf W. A., The Status of Combatants in Non‑International Armed Conflicts Under Domestic Law and Transnational Practice, „American University Law Review” 1983, vol. 33.

• Stolicki D., Ramy prawne reżimu detencji wojskowej w prawie amerykańskim w świetle aktualnego orzecznictwa, „Politeja. Pismo Wydziału Studiów Międzynarodowych i Politycznych Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego” 2014, vol. 27, nr 1.

• Szpak A., Granting Judicial Protection to the Guantanamo Detainees by the American Courts, „Polish Yearbook of International Law” 2005, vol. 27.

• Szpak A., Implementacja międzynarodowego prawa humanitarnego na tle aktualnych naruszeń tego prawa, „Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Społeczny” 2006, vol. 68, z. 4.

• Szpak A., Judicial Protection of the Guantanamo Detainees and American Nationals Held on the U.S. Territory – Analysis of the Judgments of the American Courts, „Studia Prawnicze” 2007, nr 1 (171).

• Szpak A., Status zatrzymanych w Guantanamo Bay na Kubie, „Kwartalnik Prawa Publicznego” 2005, vol. 5, nr 3.

• Tunison A., Once a Terrorist Always a Terrorist: The Law of Detention Becomes Clear When Applied to Past Terrorists Post Salahi v. Obama II, „University of La Verne Law Review” 2011, vol. 32.

• Vladeck S. I., The D.C. Circuit After Boumediene, „Seton Hall Law Review” 2011, vol. 41.

• Waters L., Federal Criminal Conspiracy, „American Criminal Law Review” 2012, vol. 49.

• Waxman M. C., Administrative Detention of Terrorists: Why Detain, and Detain Whom?, „Journal of National Security Law & Policy” 2009, vol. 3.

• Wierczyńska K., Some Remarks on Poland’s Potential Responsibility for the Treatment of Detainees in a CIA Prison In Poland, „Polish Yearbook of International Law” 2011, vol. 31.

• Young E. A., Sorting Out the Debate Over Customary International Law, „Virginia Journal of International Law” 2002, vol. 42.

• Zaręba S., Międzynarodowe prawo humanitarne a wojna w Afganistanie – wybrane zagadnienia, „Studenckie Zeszyty Naukowe UMCS” 2010, z. 20.

• Zbaraszewska A., Tajne więzienia CIA w Europie – implikacje dla Polski, „Przegląd Strategiczny” 2017, nr 10.

II. Materiały elektroniczne:

Literatura źródłowa:

• Clayton T., Al Qaeda and U.S. Policy: Middle East and Africa, CRS Report R43756, Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C. 2018, [online] https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/R43756.pdf.

• Hedges v. Obama, No. 12 Civ. 331 (KBF), 2012 WL 3999839 (S.D.N.Y., op. and order granting motion for permanent injunction Sep. 12, 2012), stayed pending appeal, Docket No. 12‑3176, Entry No. 78 (2nd Cir. Oct. 2, 2012), [online] http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp‑content/uploads/2012/10/Hedges‑stay‑order.pdf.

• National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Final Report, Washington, D.C. 2004, [online] http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO‑911REPORT/pdf/GPO‑911REPORT.pdf.

• Rollins J., Al Qaeda and Affiliates: Historical Perspective, Global Presence, and Implications for U.S. Policy, CRS Report R41070, Congressional Research Service, Washington, D.C. 2011, [online] https://fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/R41070.pdf.

Literatura pomocnicza:

– opracowania ośrodków analitycznych:

• Anderson K., Targeted Killing and Drone Warfare: How We Came to Debate Whether There is a “Legal Geography of War”, „Future Challenges in National Security and Law”, Hoover Institution, 14 VI 2010, [online] https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/research/docs/futurechallenges_anderson.pdf.

• Bellinger III J. B., A Counterterrorism Law in Need of Updating, „The Washington Post” 2010, 26 XI, [online] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp‑dyn/content/article/2010/11/25/AR2010112503116.html.

• Chesney R. M., AQAP Is Not Beyond the AUMF: A Response to Ackerman, Lawfare, 24 IV 2012, [online] http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/04/aqap‑is‑not‑beyond‑the‑aumf‑a‑response‑to‑ackerman/.

• Chesney R. M. et al., A Statutory Framework for Next‑Generation Threats, Hoover Institution, 25 II 2013, [online] https://www.scribd.com/document/127191153/A‑Statutory‑Framework‑for‑Next‑Generation‑Terrorist‑Threats.

• Chesney R. M., Is AQAP Part‑and‑Parcel of al Qaeda? Some New Evidence, Lawfare, 28 VIII 2011, [online] http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/08/is‑aqap‑part‑and‑parcel‑of‑al‑qaeda‑some‑new‑evidence/.

• Chesney R. M., Is There a Significant Distinction Between „al Qaeda” and „al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula”?, Lawfare, 3 XI 2010, [online] http://www.lawfareblog.com/2010/11/is‑there‑a‑significant‑distinction‑between‑al‑qaeda‑and‑al‑qaeda‑in‑the‑arabian‑peninsula.

• Chesney R. M., More on „Substantial Support”, „Material Support”, LOAC, and the First Amendment, Lawfare, 19 IX 2012, [online] http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/09/more‑on‑substantial‑support‑material‑support‑loac‑and‑the‑first‑amendment.

• Chesney R. M., Thoughts on the Brennan Speech: Scope of the AUMF, CCF, JSOC, and Other Issues, Lawfare, 2 V 2012, [online] http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/05/thoughts‑on‑the‑brennan‑speech‑scope‑of‑the‑aumf‑ccf‑jsoc‑and‑other‑issues.

• Goldsmith J. L., The D.C. Circuit Has Not Rejected Co‑Belligerency, Lawfare, 18 X 2010, [online] https://www.lawfareblog.com/dc‑circuit‑has‑not‑rejected‑co‑belligerency.

• Laub Z., Masters J., Al‑Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), Council of Foreign Relations, 27 III 2015, [online] http://www.cfr.org/north‑africa/al‑qaeda‑islamic‑maghreb‑aqim/p12717.

• Lederman M. S., The Important and Difficult Issues in the al‑Nashiri Case: When Did the War Begin? And Was the Cole Bombing a War Crime?, Just Security, 11 VIII 2014, [online] https://www.justsecurity.org/13873/war‑begin‑feigning‑civilian‑status‑unlawful‑perfidy‑al‑nashiri‑case.

• Lederman M. S., The legal theory behind the President’s new military initiative against ISIL, Just Security, 10 IX 2014, [online] https://www.justsecurity.org/14799/legal‑theory‑presidents‑military‑initiative‑isil.

• Tarnogórski R., USA a prawo wojny (Al‑Bihani v. Obama), „Biuletyn PISM” 2010, nr 4(612), [online] https://www.pism.pl/files/?id_plik=789.

• Vladeck S. I, Hedges and the Feinstein Amendment, Lawfare, 13 IX 2012, [online] http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/09/hedges‑and‑the‑feinstein‑amendment.

• Vladeck S. I., Judge Randolph Pulls Another Fast One‑‑But Will Anyone Notice?, PrawfsBlawg, 19 II 2011, [online] http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2011/02/judge‑randolph‑pulls‑another‑fast‑one‑but‑will‑anyone‑notice.html.

• Weizmann N., Associated Forces and Co‑belligerency, Just Security, 24 II 2015, [online] https://www.justsecurity.org/20344/isil‑aumf‑forces‑co‑belligerency.

• Wittes B., Chesney R. M., Reynolds L., The Emerging Law of Detention 2.0. The Guantanamo Habeas Cases as Lawmaking, Brookings Institution Governance Series, Washington, D.C. 2012, [online] http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2011/5/guantanamo%20wittes/05_guantanamo_wittes.pdf.

• Wittes B., Initial Thoughts on Hedges, Lawfare, 13 IX 2012, [online] http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/09/initial‑thoughts‑on‑hedges.

• Wittes B., Is the NDAA Vague or Overbroad?, Lawfare, 19 IX 2012, [online] http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/09/is‑the‑ndaa‑vague‑or‑overbroad.

• 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.

Published
2019-01-25
Section
Polityka wewnętrzna i bezpieczeństwo