16178 research outputs found
Sort by
The Dangerous Rise of Dual-Use Objects in War
No full textEach day, the news brings stories of military attacks on schools, hospitals, apartment buildings, electrical facilities, and other critical civilian infrastructure. The militaries attacking these objects often seek to justify the attacks by claiming that the civilian objects are being used by militants. Objects that are believed to have both military and civilian use are often referred to as “dual-use” objects. Even though the term has become common, international law does not recognize a “dual-use” object as a legally meaningful category. Rather, the postwar Geneva Conventions that lie at the core of modern international humanitarian law establish a bright line between “military objectives” that are considered legitimate targets of military force, and civilians and “civilian objects,” which are to be strictly protected.
We show in this Article that the targeting of dual-use objects over the last several decades has blurred this line, placing civilians at great risk. The United States has played a critical role in the increasingly expansive targeting of dual-use objects. Indeed, most accounts of the origins of dual-use targeting start with the 1991 Gulf War, in which the U.S.-led coalition responded to Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait with airstrikes on Iraq’s electrical infrastructure and bridges. The Article reviews the history of dual-use targeting and presents an original dataset and primary-source evidence from the sites of U.S. airstrikes in Iraq and Syria from 2014 to 2018 to illustrate the wide range of dual-use objects that the U.S. military has struck. It draws on ground reporting and research to show the true costs of this dual-use targeting for civilians living in areas of conflict. The United States is far from alone in targeting dual-use objects, but we focus on it because it shapes the law of armed conflict by projecting force around the world, providing legal justifications for its use of force, and setting the standards by which other states are measured. Finally, this Article recommends that states engaging in military operations collect better information about dual-use objects so that they can make better-informed targeting decisions. We also offer several recommendations for clarifying international humanitarian law to prevent further erosion of the protections the law provides to civilians during war
Burdens of Proof in Criminal Procedure
Full text linkThe Supreme Court\u27s haphazard approach to allocating burdens of proof in criminal procedure has created a system in which constitutional rights can be rendered meaningless simply because defendants are required to prove things they cannot possibly know. Even though allocations of the burden of proof often drive litigation outcomes, the Court has failed to establish clear burden allocation structures for cases arising under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, leaving lower courts split about how to allocate the burdens. When the Supreme Court does allocate burdens, it often does so without explanation or consideration of key factors. Recent Supreme Court decisions have exacerbated the problem by subtly shifting burdens of proof to defendants without acknowledgment or justification, creating practical challenges for defendants who lack access to the information necessary to meet those burdens.
This Article provides a framework for analyzing burden allocation in criminal procedure under both federal and state law. It unpacks three categories—efficiency interests, fairness issues, and policy concerns, describing the factors within each category and discussing how each factor has informed and should inform the allocation of criminal procedure burdens. It argues that courts and legislators often overemphasize efficiency interests and policy concerns about system preservation at the expense of fairness and constitutional values. The Article then proposes solutions including strategic burden-splitting and burden-shifting regimes and a greater emphasis on fairness factors and rights-specific interests when allocating burdens of proof in criminal procedure
Quantifying Riverine Plastic Pollution Using Participatory Science and Trash Traps
Full text linkLocal governments and environmental nonprofits are increasingly using trash traps to intercept and remove escaped plastics and other litter from stormwater systems and surface waters. In this paper, we demonstrate the utility of these devices for collecting data that provide insights into riverine litter sources and solutions. Between 2021 and 2024, seven Waterkeeper organizations in North Carolina maintained 21 in‐stream trash traps in watersheds across the state and trained staff and volunteers to record the types and quantities of litter during cleanouts. Over this period, Waterkeeper organizations and their volunteers documented 150,750 pieces of litter captured by traps. Captured litter overwhelmingly comprised plastic that floats and is resistant to biodegradation. Litter accumulation rates were moderately positively correlated with the percentages of developed land and impervious surface as well as road and ambient population density in the associated watershed. In some traps, litter accumulation rates were also positively correlated with precipitation rates. Beyond understanding riverine plastic pollution, this paper also provides insights on challenges and opportunities that arise from using trash traps to collect data on riverine litter
A Critique of Findings on Gun Ownership, Use, and Imagined Use From the 2021 National Firearms Survey: Response to William English
Full text linkFor a paper that has not yet been through peer review or even been formally published, William English’s “2021 National Firearms Survey” has been remarkably prominent in gun rights advocacy and scholarship. As of December 2024, it has been cited in roughly sixty-five briefs, invoked at oral argument in the Supreme Court and multiple courts of appeals, and regularly cited in public writings and published academic work.
This response is offered in the spirit of a peer review. Our focus is on methodological issues, questionable statistical results, and problematic conclusions. Because of serious methodological issues, English’s draft fails to provide a reliable estimate of the number of annual defensive gun uses, the stock of AR-15s, or the actual protective value of or frequency with which AR-15 type firearms have been used. The paper should not be used as an authoritative source.
This version of our paper has been updated to account for the response that Prof. English posted on October 23, 2024
