Guantánamo Habeas Review: Are the D.C. District Court’s Decisions Consistent with IHL Internment Standards?

Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, Vol. 42, December 2009

47 Pages Posted: 30 Nov 2009

Date Written: November 30, 2009

Abstract

After the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 in Boumediene v. Bush that the detainees at the Guantánamo Bay detention facility are entitled to the privilege of habeas corpus to challenge the legality of their detention, the D.C. District Court started to take action on the hundreds of petitions filed. In these habeas proceedings, the court has faced the threshold legal question of the scope of the government’s authority to detain pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force as informed by the law of war. This article reviews how the court has delimited the permissible bounds of the government’s detention authority, specifically focusing on whether the court’s decisions are consistent with the internment standards under the law of war, international humanitarian law (IHL). This analysis seeks to assess whether the court’s application of the Bush Administration’s definition of “enemy combatant” or the new definition provided by the Obama Administration is broader or narrower than the IHL standards.

Keywords: Guantanamo, habeas, law of war, law of armed conflict, internment, detention

Suggested Citation

Olson, Laura Marie, Guantánamo Habeas Review: Are the D.C. District Court’s Decisions Consistent with IHL Internment Standards? (November 30, 2009). Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, Vol. 42, December 2009, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1515928 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1515928

Laura Marie Olson (Contact Author)

The Constitution Project ( email )

1200 18th St., NW
Washington, DC 20036
United States

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
109
Abstract Views
672
rank
296,745
PlumX Metrics