战斗人员身份审查法庭:错误问题的错误答案

IF 5.2 1区社会学 Q1 LAW

Yale Law Journal Pub Date : 2006-12-01 DOI:10.2307/20455734

Joseph Blocher

{"title":"战斗人员身份审查法庭:错误问题的错误答案","authors":"Joseph Blocher","doi":"10.2307/20455734","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Comment argues that the Combatant Status Review Tribunals were not competent to deny Prisoner of War status because they were charged only with identifying enemy combatants, a broad category that by its own terms includes many POWs. Given the substantial overlap between the definitions of \"enemy combatant\" and \"POW,\" a CSRT's affirmative enemy combatant determination actually supports a detainee's POW status. Thus, even after their enemy combatant status has been adjudicated by the CSRTs, Guantanamo detainees should still be treated as presumptive POWs.","PeriodicalId":48293,"journal":{"name":"Yale Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2006-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"18","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Combatant Status Review Tribunals: Flawed Answers to the Wrong Question\",\"authors\":\"Joseph Blocher\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/20455734\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This Comment argues that the Combatant Status Review Tribunals were not competent to deny Prisoner of War status because they were charged only with identifying enemy combatants, a broad category that by its own terms includes many POWs. Given the substantial overlap between the definitions of \\\"enemy combatant\\\" and \\\"POW,\\\" a CSRT's affirmative enemy combatant determination actually supports a detainee's POW status. Thus, even after their enemy combatant status has been adjudicated by the CSRTs, Guantanamo detainees should still be treated as presumptive POWs.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48293,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Yale Law Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"18\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Yale Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/20455734\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Yale Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/20455734","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 18

摘要

本评论认为，战斗人员身份审查法庭无权否认战俘身份，因为它们只负责识别敌方战斗人员，这是一个广泛的类别，按其本身的术语包括许多战俘。鉴于“敌方战斗人员”和“战俘”的定义之间存在大量重叠，CSRT对敌方战斗人员的肯定确定实际上支持了被拘留者的战俘身份。因此，即使在他们的敌对战斗员身份被CSRTs裁定后，关塔那摩的被拘留者仍应被视为推定战俘。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Combatant Status Review Tribunals: Flawed Answers to the Wrong Question

This Comment argues that the Combatant Status Review Tribunals were not competent to deny Prisoner of War status because they were charged only with identifying enemy combatants, a broad category that by its own terms includes many POWs. Given the substantial overlap between the definitions of "enemy combatant" and "POW," a CSRT's affirmative enemy combatant determination actually supports a detainee's POW status. Thus, even after their enemy combatant status has been adjudicated by the CSRTs, Guantanamo detainees should still be treated as presumptive POWs.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Yale Law Journal LAW-

CiteScore

4.50

自引率

6.20%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Yale Law Journal Online is the online companion to The Yale Law Journal. It replaces The Pocket Part, which was the first such companion to be published by a leading law review. YLJ Online will continue The Pocket Part"s mission of augmenting the scholarship printed in The Yale Law Journal by providing original Essays, legal commentaries, responses to articles printed in the Journal, podcast and iTunes University recordings of various pieces, and other works by both established and emerging academics and practitioners.