战争的准则

IF 5.2 1区 社会学 Q1 LAW Yale Law Journal Pub Date : 2007-04-30 DOI:10.2307/20455792
D. J. Freeman
{"title":"战争的准则","authors":"D. J. Freeman","doi":"10.2307/20455792","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"War powers hang in a delicate balance, with conflicting statutes overlying contrasting constitutional prerogatives. As Congress has filled nearly every shadowy corner of Justice Jackson's \"zone of twilight\" with its own imprimatur, war powers debates now hinge on traditional statutory interpretation, albeit in a unique context. This Note establishes context-specific canons for interpreting war powers legislation and effectuating its underlying values, aiming to provide principled resolution to seemingly intractable conflicts. In so doing, it draws upon the complete set of judicial opinions assessing authorizations of the use of military force and analyzes the institutional framework beneath them.","PeriodicalId":48293,"journal":{"name":"Yale Law Journal","volume":"1 1","pages":"280"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2007-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Canons of War\",\"authors\":\"D. J. Freeman\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/20455792\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"War powers hang in a delicate balance, with conflicting statutes overlying contrasting constitutional prerogatives. As Congress has filled nearly every shadowy corner of Justice Jackson's \\\"zone of twilight\\\" with its own imprimatur, war powers debates now hinge on traditional statutory interpretation, albeit in a unique context. This Note establishes context-specific canons for interpreting war powers legislation and effectuating its underlying values, aiming to provide principled resolution to seemingly intractable conflicts. In so doing, it draws upon the complete set of judicial opinions assessing authorizations of the use of military force and analyzes the institutional framework beneath them.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48293,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Yale Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"280\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2007-04-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Yale Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/20455792\",\"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/10.2307/20455792","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: 1

摘要

战争权力处于微妙的平衡之中,相互冲突的法规凌驾于对比鲜明的宪法特权之上。由于国会已经用自己的授权填满了杰克逊大法官的“黄昏地带”的几乎每一个阴暗角落,战争权力的辩论现在取决于传统的法律解释,尽管是在一个独特的背景下。本说明为解释战争权力立法和实现其潜在价值确立了具体情况的准则,旨在为看似棘手的冲突提供原则性解决方案。在这样做时,它借鉴了一整套评估授权使用军事力量的司法意见,并分析了这些意见所依据的体制框架。
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
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Canons of War
War powers hang in a delicate balance, with conflicting statutes overlying contrasting constitutional prerogatives. As Congress has filled nearly every shadowy corner of Justice Jackson's "zone of twilight" with its own imprimatur, war powers debates now hinge on traditional statutory interpretation, albeit in a unique context. This Note establishes context-specific canons for interpreting war powers legislation and effectuating its underlying values, aiming to provide principled resolution to seemingly intractable conflicts. In so doing, it draws upon the complete set of judicial opinions assessing authorizations of the use of military force and analyzes the institutional framework beneath them.
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
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
6.20%
发文量
0
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.
期刊最新文献
Abolitionist Prison Litigation How to Save the Supreme Court Prosecuting Corporate Crime When Firms Are Too Big to Jail: Investigation, Deterrence, and Judicial Review The Statutory Separation of Powers A Cooperative Federalism Approach to Shareholder Arbitration
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1