Liberal Lawfare and Biopolitics: US Juridical Warfare in the War on Terror
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two basic forms of ‘lawfare’ are employed by the United States in its enactment of the war on terror, both of which have a biopolitical focus. The first strategy has been well documented. 1 1. See, for example: D. Gregory, ‘The Black Flag: Guantánamo Bay and the Space of Exception’, Geografiska Annaler B 88/4 (2006) pp. 405–427; S. Reid-Henry, ‘Exceptional Sovereignty? Guantanamo Bay and the Re-Colonial Present’, Antipode 39/4 (2007) pp. 627–648; G. Kearns, ‘The Geography of Terror’, Political Geography 27/3 (2008) pp. 360–364; A. D. Barder, ‘Power, Violence and Torture: Making Sense of Insurgency and Legitimacy Crises in Past and Present Wars of Attrition’, in F. Debrix and M. Lacy (eds.), The Geopolitics of American Insecurity: Terror, Power and Foreign Policy (New York: Routledge 2009) pp. 54–70; and A. Macklin, ‘Transjudicial Conversations about Security and Human Rights’, in M. B. Salter (ed.), Mapping Transatlantic Security Relations The EU, Canada and the War on Terror (New York: Routledge 2010) pp. 212–235. It involves the indefinite detention and sometimes extraordinary rendition of enemy combatants, legally sanctioned and politically justified by the ‘exceptional’ circumstances of late modern war and terrorist violence. Geography plays a central role in strategy number one: the legal statuses of detainees, whose lives and bodies are cast out and denied basic juridical rights, are bounded, identified and allowed for in extra-territorial spaces throughout the world, from Guantanamo Bay to Bagram Air Force Base. Such exceptional biopolitical spaces are essentially ‘defensive’ and operate at the local scale. On the contrary, the second seldom-discussed legal strategy conditions and protects the US military in ‘offensive’ mode, operates at the national and transnational scale, and involves the careful legal designation and protection of US military personnel in forward deployed areas. 2 2. Both strategies work in concert with each other of course, with various locations acting as both ‘base’ and ‘prison’. This paper is centrally concerned with strategy number two – a strategy that can be defined as ‘forward juridical warfare’ and involves the US military's mobilisation of the law in the waging of war along the ‘new frontiers’ of its war on terror. The paper seeks to expound the legal and biopolitical constitution and operation of the current US military's forward presence overseas, and begins by drawing on recent work on biopolitics that has sought in various ways to critique the proliferation of practices of liberal lawfare and securitization in our contemporary world.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".