ILNews

ND Law hosts "What is war?"

IL Staff
January 1, 2007
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
"What Is War?" is the name and subject of a conference at the Hesburgh Center for International Studies Auditorium at the University of Notre Dame Sept. 14 and 15. The University of Notre Dame Law School, the Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, and Mershon Center for International Security Studies at Ohio State University are sponsoring the conference. It is free and open to the public.

The discussions will feature Gen. Sir Michael Rose (British Forces, retired), and Gen. William Nash (U.S.A., retired), former commanders in Bosnia, along with a distinguished roster of political scientists, international lawyers, peace researchers, war correspondents, ethicists, and historians. Rev. Theodore M. Hesburgh, CSC, president emeritus of Notre Dame, will be on hand for opening remarks.

The forum will address how to define war, going beyond the academic question and addressing basic human rights, including the right to life, the right to a trial, the right to own property.

"At the moment there is no clear legal line dividing the two situations," the event's Web site states. "Governments tend to deny that fighting on their territories is war, arguing instead that it is 'criminal activity,' and claiming that they have it under control. Following the Sept. 11 attacks, the United States reversed the trend, declaring war where many would see crime."

This interdisciplinary conference is an outgrowth of an International Law Association study group charged with addressing the legal challenges raised by the Bush Administration's "global war on terror."

A tentative agenda and speaker biographies are available on the event's Web site http://kroc.nd.edu/events/07meaningofwar.shtml. For more information, contact the Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, (574) 631-6970.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT