Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/35889
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorHartz, Emily
dc.date.accessioned2018-02-28T07:45:16Z
dc.date.available2018-02-28T07:45:16Z
dc.date.issued2010
dc.identifier.issn2029-0454
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.2478/v10076-010-0011-y
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/35889-
dc.description.abstractThis article aims to bring philosophical and legal aspects of the discussions of the problem of emergency together by employing classic philosophical views on the problem of emergency to categorize dominating paradigms of legal interpretation in the American Supreme Court. In the first part of the article I review the American Supreme Court's case-history and single out three dominating legal paradigms for interpreting the problem of emergency: the rights model, the extra-legal model and the procedural model. I argue that the procedural model has been by far the most influential. In the second part of the article I ask how this precedence has played out in the context of terrorism cases. I argue that the first four cases that were brought against the government confirmed the procedural model as the Court's primary model for evaluating legal problems related to emergencies. But I also argue that the Court's latest decision on this issue, Boumediene v. Bush from 2008, introduces a shift from the previous general tendency to rely primarily on a procedural model towards including substantial rights concerns.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofBaltic Journal of Law & Politics, 2010 vol. 3, iss. 2, p. 40-68en_US
dc.rightsSutarties data 2018-01-30, nr. A1806, laisvai prieinamas internetelt_LT
dc.rightsLaisvai prieinamas internete (DE GRUYTER OPEN)lt_LT
dc.subjectThe Supreme Court of the United States of Americaen_US
dc.subjectProblem of emergencyen_US
dc.subjectTerrorismen_US
dc.subjectRightsen_US
dc.subjectWaren_US
dc.titleFrom "Milligan" to "Boumediene": three models of emergency jurisprudence in the American supreme courten_US
dc.typeStraipsnis / Article
dc.subject.udc34 Teisė / Law
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
item.grantfulltextopen-
Appears in Collections:Baltic Journal of Law & Politics 2010, vol. 3, iss. 2
Files in This Item:
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

56
checked on Nov 5, 2019

Download(s)

56
checked on Nov 5, 2019

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.