MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W896809431

A State’s Right to Military Power: The International Legal Implications of Potential SDF Action

2013· article· en· W896809431 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rachel Mueller

Notice bibliographique

RevueDuke journal of comparative & international law · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueMilitary and Defense Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésConstitutionLawState (computer science)Guard (computer science)Use of forcePolitical scienceRules of engagementPower (physics)International lawProportionality (law)MathematicsComputer science
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION I. STRUCTURE OF THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES A. Federal Forces B. The National Guard C. State Defense Forces II. HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR SDFS A. History of SDFs Prior to the Constitution B. The Constitution C. Interpreting the Constitutional Grant of Power III. FOREIGN RELATIONS POWERS IN THE UNITED STATES A. International Relations Power and Preemption B. Declaring War and Engaging in War C. Categorizing Mexican Drug Cartels as Political Entities Capable of Provoking the Internationally Legal Use of Force by SDFs IV. INTERNATIONAL LAW V. ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION INTRODUCTION In the United States, governors and state-level leadership are responsible for providing the initial response to an attack on their citizens. (1) With this great responsibility, however, comes only a few resources. Governors rely on state police and the National Guard to respond to situations. (2) These forces are often ill-equipped to handle major incidents, much less catastrophes which often involve more than five hundred casualties. (3) Twenty-two states have groups of civilians, separate from the police and National Guard, whose training is similar to armed forces reserve components. (4) Today, these forces are called state defense forces (SDFs), and they originate from the state militias so important to the original American colonies' defense. (5) While the governors of states with SDFs may call on the SDFs to defend against invasion, (6) the SDFs' validity and the effect of any action or armed engagement by such a force has not been tested in international law. If an SDF mobilized and engaged another force, either a non-national actor or a nation itself, would the use of force be legal? (7) What if the force was used at or across a United States border, for instance, engaging the citizens or soldiers of Mexico? (8) These questions raise constitutional questions domestically (9) and legal use of force questions internationally. (10) Ultimately, because the Constitution and federal law authorize the use of SDFs, the United States could be held responsible for their acts under the international theory of attribution. (11) Because of this potential international legal responsibility, the United States should either (1) adopt strict limits with more specificity delineating exactly when and how SDFs should engage international forces, or (2) eliminate SDFs as an outdated historical relic no longer necessary for national protection. I. STRUCTURE OF THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES Understanding how SDFs fit within the United States' overall military structure clarifies analysis of the international legal effect of SDF actions. The United States' military structure is tiered, including dedicated federal forces, hybrid National Guard forces, and locally focused SDFs. (12) The SDFs are ultimately subject to national control, but their local character both makes them a potent tool for immediate state-level defense and colors the legality of their actions in international law. (13) A. Federal Forces The United States military is divided into five main branches, including the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard. (14) All of these branches, except the Coast Guard, operate under the Department of Defense and report to their respective secretaries, but the Marine Corps reports to the Secretary of the Navy. (15) The Army, Navy, and Air Force secretaries report to the Secretary of Defense who, in turn, reports to the President as commander in chief. (16) The Coast Guard operates under the Department of Homeland Security. (17) However, after a declaration of war or when the President so directs, the Coast Guard operates under authority of the Department of the Navy. (18) When the Coast Guard operates as a component of the Department of Homeland Security, the Coast Guard's top officer, the Commandant, (19) reports directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security, (20) who, in turn, reports to the President as a member of the Cabinet. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: Théorique ou conceptuel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,030
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,059

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0080,022
Communication savante0,0090,005
Science ouverte0,0010,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0130,009
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0100,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,031
Tête enseignante GPT0,349
Écart entre enseignants0,318 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2013
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueDuke journal of comparative & international lawMême sujetMilitary and Defense StudiesTravaux en français237 207