A central aspect of the Center’s mission is to promote and disseminate scholarship on international law, foreign affairs law, and national security law. Our Center offers law school faculty, Center fellows, and students a forum to present their work, encourages collaboration on shared initiatives, and supports the dissemination of ideas to the policy community outside academia. Our publications include articles and books, white papers, and legal briefs.

Featured Publication


Congressional Oversight of Modern Warfare: History, Pathologies, and Proposals for Reform

Oona A. Hathaway, Tobias Kuehne, Randi Michel, and Nicole Ng

Despite significant developments in the nature of twenty-first century warfare, Congress continues to employ a twentieth century oversight structure. Modern warfare tactics, including cyber operations, drone strikes, and special operations, do not neatly fall into congressional committee jurisdictions. Counterterrorism and cyber operations, which are inherently multi-jurisdictional and highly classified, illustrate the problem. In both contexts, over the past several years Congress has addressed oversight shortcomings by strengthening its reporting requirements, developing relatively robust oversight regimes. But in solving one problem, Congress has created another: deeply entrenched information silos that inhibit the sharing of information about modern warfare across committees. This has real consequences. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee may have to vote on an authorization for the use of military force against a country without a full understanding of options for covert operations that might achieve the same purpose with less risk. The House and Senate Armed Services Committees may be asked to approve a train-and-equip program for a partner force in a nation without knowing that the CIA is already operating essentially the same program. And the House and Senate Intelligence Committees may support a proposed covert operation without understanding the broader foreign policy context, and therefore, the reaction that it might provoke if it were discovered.

But there is good news with the bad. If Congress is to blame for this information siloing, Congress is also able to fix it. This Article’s discussion of solutions begins with a proposal made by the 9/11 Commission to address information sharing failures—the formation of a super committee to address national security matters. After explaining why this is not the right answer, this Article offers four concrete proposals to remedy the problem. First, Congress should promote inter-committee information sharing by expanding cross-committee membership. Second, Congress should require joint briefings to committees when matters cut across jurisdictional boundaries. Third, Congress should permit members to share classified information with other members under limited, clearly defined circumstances. And fourth, Congress should create a Congressional National Security Council to coordinate cross-cutting national security matters and share mutually relevant information.

 

Oona Hathaway, Srinath Kethireddy, Alexandra Francis, Alyssa Yamamoto & Aaron Haviland, Aiding and Abetting in International Law, 104 Cornell Law Review 1593 (2020)

Oona Hathaway, Srinath Kethireddy, Alexandra Francis, Alyssa Yamamoto, and Aaron Haviland, Yemen: Is the U.S. Breaking the Law?, Harvard National Security Review (2019)

Oona Hathaway, Paul Strauch, Beatrice Walton, Zoe Weinberg, What is a War Crime? Yale Journal of International Law (2019)

Oona Hathaway, William Holste, Scott Shapiro, Jacqueline Van De Velde, and Lisa Wang Lachowicz, War Manifestos, 85 Chicago Law Review 1139 (2018)

Oona Hathaway, William Holste, Scott Shapiro, Jacqueline Van De Velde, and Lisa Wang Lachowicz, War Manifestos Database, Yale Law School

Oona Hathaway, Emily Chertoff, Lara Domínguez, Zachary Manfredi and Peter Tzeng, Ensuring Responsibility: Common Article 1 and State Responsibility for Non-State Actors, 95 Texas Law Review 539 (2017)

Oona Hathaway, Rebecca Crootof, Daniel Hessel, Julia Shu, and Sarah Weiner, Consent is Not Enough: Why States Must Respect the Intensity Threshold in Transnational Conflict, 165 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 11 (2016)

Oona Hathaway, Julia Brower, Ryan Liss, Tina Thomas, & Jacob Victor, Consent-Based Humanitarian Intervention, 46 Cornell International Law Journal 499 (2013)

Oona Hathaway, Samuel Adelsberg, Spencer Amdur, Philip Levitz, Freya Pitts, and Sirine Shebaya The Power to Detain: Detention of Terrorism Suspects After 9/11, Yale Journal of International Law (2013)

Oona Hathaway, Aileen Nowlan & Julia Spiegel,  Tortured Reasoning: The Intent to Torture Under International and Domestic Law, 52 Virginia Journal of International Law 791 (2012)

Oona Hathaway, Human Rights Abroad: When Do Human Rights Treaty Obligations Apply Extraterritorially? Ariz. St. L.J. 43. (2013)

Oona A. Hathaway, Sabria McElroy, Sara Aronchick Solow, International Law at Home: Enforcing Treaties in U.S. Courts, Yale Journal of International Law, (2012)

Oona A. Hathaway, Rebecca Crootof, Philip Levitz, Haley Nix, Aileen Nowlan, William Perdue, Julia Spiegel, The Law Of Cyber-Attack, California Law Review, (2012)

Oona A. Hathaway, Rebecca Crootof, Philip Levitz, Haley Nix, William Perdue, Chelsea Purvis, Julia Spiegel, The Relationship Between International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law in Armed Conflict, Minnesota Law Review, (2012)

Oona Hathaway, Spencer Amdur, Celia Choy, Samir Deger-Sen, Haley Nix, John Paredes, and Sally Pei, The Treaty Power: Its History, Scope, and Limits, Cornell Law Review, (2012)

Oona Hathaway, Samuel Adelsberg, Spencer Amdur, Philip Levitz, Freya Pitts, And Sirine Shebaya, The Power To Detain: Detention Of Terrorism Suspects After 9/11, forthcoming Yale Journal Of International Law (2012)

Nestlé v. Doe & Cargill v. Doe Brief of Yale Law School Center for Global Legal Challenges as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondent. United States Supreme Court (October 2020).

Edgar v. Ratcliffe, Brief of Yale Law School Center for Global Legal Challenges as Amicus Curiae In Support of Appellants and Reversal. U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (August 2020) (on appeal from the U.S. District Court)

Al-Alwi v. Trump, Brief of Yale Law School Center for Global Legal Challenges as Amicus Curiae In Support of Initial Hearing En Banc. U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (October 2017) (on appeal from the U.S. District Court)

Joseph Jesner, et. al., v. Arab Bank, PLC, Brief of Yale Law School Center for Global Legal Challenges as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondent. United States Supreme Court (July 2017)

Carol Anne Bond v. United States of America, Brief of Yale Law School Center for Global Legal Challenges as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondent. United States Supreme Court (October 2012).

Esther Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., et al.; Asid Mohamad, et al. v. Palestinian Authority, et al., Brief Of Yale Law School Center For Global Legal Challenges as Amicus Curiae In Support Of Petitioners

Esther Kiobel, et al. v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., et al., Supplemental Brief Of Yale Law School Center For Global Legal Challenges as Amicus Curiae In Support Of Petitioners

Ghaleeb Nassar v. Barack Obama, Brief for Non Governmental Organizations and Scholars as Amici Curiae in Support of Rehearing or Rehearing en Banc

Jamal Kiyemba, Next Friend, et al. v. Barak Obama, President of the United States, et al., Brief of International Law Experts as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners, United States Supreme Court (December 2009)