Preemptive Strike Research Articles

A Unified Approach to Erie Analysis for Federal Statutes, Rules, and Common Law

This Article proposes overhauling the Supreme Court’s approach to choice of law under Erie and Hanna. It develops three primary points. First, Hanna’s “unguided” “twin aims” of Erie test for resolving conflicts between federal common law and state law is irredeemably flawed. The test is a canon of interpretation masquerading as a choice-of-law rule and fails at both tasks. The Hanna approach: (1) relies on an arbitrary distinction between federal common law and statutory law that elides the indeterminate boundary between lawmaking and interpretation; (2) fails to directly confront questions about federal common law’s validity and scope; (3) cannot rely on the oft-cited but inapposite Rules of Decision Act; and (4) ignores the judiciary’s authority to fill gaps in procedural codes with federal common law. This Article is also the first to extensively explore how FRCP 83’s authorization of gap-filling undermines Hanna’s approach to choice of law. Second, preemption doctrine implementing the Supremacy Clause should fill the choice-of-law role that courts mistakenly assign to Hanna. Under the Supremacy Clause, valid federal law — including federal common law — preempts state law on matters within the federal law’s scope. The “unguided” Hanna inquiry is misguided because it invents a distracting alternative to preemption analysis. Third, reframing choice of law in terms of preemption spotlights policy questions that courts applying Hanna overlook. Preemption can occur only when a particular federal law is a valid exercise of federal lawmaking power and encompasses a disputed issue. Courts considering whether to apply federal law — including federal common law — must therefore assess the federal law’s validity and breadth. Relevant questions include: (1) whether the federal government has authority to create law covering the issue; (2) if so, which federal institutions — Congress or the judiciary — can create law; and (3) whether federal courts should interpret the ensuing federal law broadly or narrowly to embrace or avoid conflict with state law. These sensitive policy questions would benefit from direct attention and should not be blurred with Hanna’s tangents. This approach would make choice of law analysis more coherent, enhance understanding of federal common law, and require courts to directly engage the federalism and separation of powers concerns at Erie’s core.

Intercepting pandemics through genomics

Ecological interactions that cross domains of life have major impacts on ecosystems and human health. Although the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic makes this point with destructive clarity, it is clear that zoonotic pathogens pose a standing threat to our species as demonstrated by Ebola, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). Other species experience similar pandemics and are both sources of, and sensitive to, shared pathogens. More than a century ago, Cryphonectria parasitica ( Left ), the fungus that causes Chestnut blight, devastated the American Chestnut tree. Until its eradication in 2011, Rinderpest morbillivirus ( Right ) decimated cattle and other ungulate populations. A biosurveillance system would help prevent future deadly and economically devastating pathogen outbreaks. Image credit: Paul Beales/UK Crown Copyright ( Left ); © Bioimaging at The Pirbright Institute ( Right ). Hence, there is an urgent need to establish a global, genomic-based biosurveillance platform, a development which would be of immense value to biosecurity, biodefense, and the economy. If implemented, this “pandemic interception system” would hugely advance our understanding of the natural world. Three major research programs are poised to support this effort: BIOSCAN, the Earth BioGenome Project (EBP), and the Global Virome Project (GVP). Each of these global programs is now working to develop approaches in comparative genomics that are needed to discover all species and to reveal their interactions. The diversity of infectious agents involved in host–pathogen interactions needs immediate clarification, especially with regard to those agents that transfect phylogenetically divergent lineages. Such information will enable a surveillance system that facilitates preemptive strikes and rapid responses to outbreaks as well as early development of diagnostic pipelines and vaccines. If pursued with a tiny fraction of the resources devoted toward the suppression of COVID-19, rapid progress could be made in identifying every pathogen hosted by birds and mammals … [↵][1]1To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: kressj{at}si.edu. [1]: #xref-corresp-1-1

تطور استخدام القوة خارج اطار ميثاق الامم المتحدة ) دراسة في ضوء قواعد القانون الدولي المعاصر )

شهد المجتمع الدولي مراحل متعددة من التطور في مجال استخدام القوة ففي الوقت الذي كان فيه هذا الاستخدام وسليه مشروعة ابان العصور القديمة ، بدء يشهد نوع من التقيد في عهد التنظيم الدولي وقد وصل هذا التقيد الى اعلى مستوياته في ظل منظمة الامم المتحدة وهذا ما يمكن ملاحظته على نص المادة ( 2/4) من ميثاق الامم المتحدة ، التي اكدت على تحريم استعمال القوة او التهديد بها في اطار العلاقات الدولية ، الا ان هذا الحظر لم يكن مطلقاً فقد اوجد الميثاق نفسه بعض الاستثناءات عليه وهذه الاستثناءات هي ( تدابير الامن الجماعي ) كأجراء تقوم به منظمة الامم المتحدة اذا ما وجدت ان هناك ضرورة تستوجب ذلك ، والاستثناء الثاني هو ( حق الدفاع الشرعي ) الذي يجيز للدول استخدام القوة لمواجهة عدوان مسلح واقع عليها .الا ان واقع الحال قد افرز لنا حالات لجأت فيها الدول الى استخدام القوة خارج الاستثناءات التي ذكرناها في اعلاه ( كاستخدام القوة تحت ذريعة مكافحة الارهاب ، واستخدام القوة لأغراض التدخل الانساني ، واستخدام القوة في حالة الحرب الاستباقية ) لذلك ومن اجل بيان مدى شرعية استخدام القوة في هذه الحالات ارتأينا الى تناول هذا الموضوع بالبحث .

The U.S. Killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani: Of Wrong Trees and Red Herrings, and Why the Killing May Be Lawful after All

The general wisdom is that the United States violated international law when it killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani at Baghdad International Airport on 3 January 2020. Most commentators discussed the killing under the aspect of pre-emptive self-defence. However, in its report to the UN Security Council the United States made no mention of pre-emptive self-defence or an imminent armed attack. Much of the “imminent threat” and “imminent attack” rhetoric employed by President Trump and other U.S. government officials seems to have been geared towards a domestic audience and the question of the President’s war powers under the U.S. Constitution. It may be for this reason that U.S. Attorney General William Barr called the concept of imminence “something of a red herring” when defending the Soleimani strike as “a legitimate act of self-defence.” It thus seems that the majority of commentators have been barking up the wrong tree when they very skilfully showed that the United States did not have a right to pre-emptive self-defence because there was no imminent armed attack. This paper follows a different lead, examining whether the killing was lawful as an act of self-defence against a continuing series of attacks against the United States by Iran. It shows that this argument can constitute a credible justification of the killing of General Soleimani under international law. Much, however, hinges on the facts. Without detailed knowledge of the facts no final and conclusive legal assessment of the killing can be made. The cautious reaction to the killing by Germany and other States did not mean that they considered the killing outright unlawful under international law. On the contrary, it seems that these States considered the U.S. justification of self-defence at least plausible, but that they did not have sufficient information on the facts to come to a final legal assessment.

Is the Killing of Qasem Soleimani by the United States of America Legal Under International Law?

General Qasem Soleimani, the Commander of Iran’s Quds Force was killed on 3rd January 2020 near Baghdad airport by a US drone strike. In the wake of the killing which has escalated tensions in the ever-volatile Middle East, one of the predominant questions has been on the legality or otherwise of the US strike. As a justification of the strikes, Trump’s Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo and other senior officials of the Trump administration have maintained that shortly before his killing, General Soleimani was planning multiple attacks on US military bases and diplomats in the Middle East. They also argue that the planned attacks on US interests were imminent and the killing was to disrupt the planned attacks and to deter future attacks. Trump also stated that the attack was not to start a war with Iran but to avoid a war. The argument advanced by the US is that of self-defense which is a legitimate use of force in international law. While the US is yet to make the evidence of the imminence of the planned attacks public, the imminent attacks argument is advanced to confer legality on the killing. Assuming there was an imminent threat of attack on US interests as claimed by Trump and senior administration officials, the question is whether the imminence of the planned attacks confers on the US a right of preemptive self-defense which renders the killing legal under international. This article seeks to answer this question through an analysis of the current normative order on use of force and the doctrine of self defense under international law.

Regulation with Experimentation: Ex Ante Approval, Ex Post Withdrawal, and Liability

The introduction of possibly unsafe products, the granting of patents, and more generally the dynamic adoption of activities with uncertain externalities are characterized by two phases. In the ex ante pre-introduction phase, costly experimentation is undertaken to decide whether it is worth entering the market or abandoning experimentation. In the ex post learning phase, the decision is made whether to stay in the market or withdraw following the accumulation of bad news. Through a novel and tractable continuous-time model featuring these two phases of ex ante experimentation and ex post learning, we draw positive and normative implications for the balance of the three main tools used to regulate private incentives: liability, withdrawal, and authorization. Shedding light on the preemption doctrine, we find that liability should be preempted to avoid chilling of activities that generate large positive externalities. For activities that generate small positive externalities, instead, liability should be used to discourage excessive experimentation. Authorization regulation should be lenient whenever it is used, consistent with how regulation is structured in a number of areas ranging from safety to patents.

Entangled Incidents: Nigeria in the Global War on Terror (1994–2009)

This article reviews the early history of Boko Haram (1994–2009) in the light of the trans-local entanglement of Nigerian political and religious actors in the global paradigm of the War on Terror (WoT). Empirically, the article shows evidence of Nigeria's early involvement in a counterterrorism strategy based on the surveillance of actors (who gradually morphed into Boko Haram) believed to be connected to international terrorist networks. Such a strategy was mainly designed to sever such alleged international ties. Methodologically, the article draws on the idea that terrorism and counterterrorism are two structures that take shape in parallel ways in any given context and suggests that Nigeria's counterterrorism strategies need to become part of the historical narrative on Boko Haram. Theoretically, it argues that the early history of Boko Haram was shaped by a specifically Nigerian configuration of WoT politics. It submits that two incidents that occurred in 2003 and 2009 should be viewed as WoT preemptive strikes rather than as insurgencies. Finally, it argues that such WoT policies have contributed to transform a small, embryonic group of militants animated by a global agenda into an all-out, local insurgency against Nigerian institutions and civil society.

A State at Any Cost: The Life of David Ben-Gurion by Tom Segev

Reviewed by: A State at Any Cost: The Life of David Ben-Gurion by Tom Segev Christopher L. Schilling (bio) A State at Any Cost: The Life of David Ben-Gurion By Tom Segev. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2019. 817 pp. Born in 1945, Tom Segev is an Israeli journalist and historian widely associated with Israel's so-called New Historians, a group that challenges many of the country's traditional narratives. In his previous book, 1967: Israel, the War, and the Year That Transformed the Middle East (Macmillan, 2007), Segev controversially denies any existential threat to Israel from a military point of view and believes that its Arab neighbours would not have attacked Israel in 1967. Segev argues that because major parts of the Israeli population feared Egypt and Syria, pressure increased and led the Israeli government to a preemptive attack. In his critique, Michael Oren subsequently disregarded Segev, despite his doctorate in history, as a journalist: "He's not really a trained historian."1 Oren asserts that Segev "contradict[ed] himself" and committed "glaring oversights."2 In the same vein, Benny Morris called Segev's analysis "essentially false," contributing to the "contemporary delegitimation of Israel" while pointing "readers and scholars in no worthwhile direction."3 Segev describes Ben-Gurion as a humorless, pork-eating, Shabbatworking atheist—a man who suffered from depression, spent weeks in bed, lied, forged academic documents to get into university in Istanbul, and ran away from his responsibilities. Segev faults Ben-Gurion for security failures, as well as for dismissing Holocaust survivors as disappointing "human capital" and Sephardi Jews as "primitive." He tells of a Ben-Gurion who excitedly waited to see Trotsky on the Red Square in Moscow and bought Mein Kampf at a train kiosk in Munich; of a man of moods and outbursts, one who was always between supreme happiness and suicidal depression; of a man who consulted a Romanian fortune teller, and once claimed to have seen a flying saucer. [End Page 307] The book focuses in great detail on the four women with whom Ben-Gurion allegedly had extramarital affairs. Segev defends his focus on these affairs arguing that they are of genuine historical value rather than mere gossip: "The first answer is the standard one—that if the leader isn't faithful to his wife, maybe he's not faithful to his voters, either. If he cheats on her, maybe he cheats on them, too […] I don't think it's unreasonable to know about his weaknesses and distress, and about the women whose company he enjoyed while making important decisions."4 Whether or not it is persuasive to deduce that an individual who cheats on his wife is more likely to lie to voters, or to assume a politician would necessarily be persuaded by women with whom he shares his bed, Oren's critique of journalism versus academic analysis comes to mind. Following such logic, one might be inclined to ask Segev whether a politician who is faithful to his wife is less likely to lie to his voters. Segev's book sees women simply as historical bystanders in the formation of the Jewish state. Unfortunately, women are described only in relation to their male counterparts: "His young wife took down the rifle and rushed after him [farmer Shimon Melamed] to give him the weapon. She went home to watch their child, and her husband went up to the farm" (94); "He [Ben-Gurion] handed over most of the money to a woman who was also a party member, in exchange for which she cooked his dinners" (102). Segev's book often seems to adhere to a tradition of narrating Israeli history in which women are depicted as artists, martyrs, or grieving mothers, with the exception of Israel's only female prime minister, Golda Meir. Too often, the contributions of women who participated in the development of the State of Israel and its institutions—the "state at any cost"—have been buried in archives or remain family stories. Only recently has this participation begun to slowly appear in the literature. And it is about time: the year A State at Any Cost was published in Israel marks...

الدفاع الشرعي الاستباقي في القانون الدولي العام (Anticipatory Self-Defence Under Public International Law)

Arabic Abstract: الشرعي في المادة (51) من ميثاق الأمم المتحدة هو المفهوم الشائع لدى المعظم. ولكن، هنالك مبدأ مواز للدفاع الشرعي يخول الدولة عن نفسها دون انتظار هجوم فعلي، بل لدرء خطر وشيك أو محتمل الوقوع، يطلق عليه الدفاع الشرعي الاستباقي. يتلخص هدف الورقة في تحديد ما إذا كان ثمة حق دفاع شرعي استباقي في القانون الدولي العام، أم أن الشرعي مقتصر في حال وقوع هجوم مسلح بداية للرد عليه، وذلك من خلال تجميع الآراء الفقهية وطرح الورقة ثلاثة أسئلة مركزية: (1) ما التفسير الأدق لنص المادة (51) من الميثاق، بناء على اتفاقية فيينا لقانون المعاهدات؟ (2) ما موقف محكمة العدل الدولية من الشرعي الاستباقي؟ (3) ما موقف بقية أجهزة الأمم المتحدة؟ English Abstract: Self-defence in article (51) of the United Nations Charter is the common concept to most people. However, there is a concept parallel to self-defence which activates a state’s right to defend itself without awaiting an actual armed attack, but to ward off a threat that is imminent or probable; that is called “anticipatory self-defence”. The aim objective of this paper is to identify whether anticipatory self-defence is acknowledged in public international law, or is it merely restricted to responding to an armed attack. This task will be achieved through the compilation of jurisprudent views and by addressing three central questions: (1) What is the most accurate interpretation of the text of article (51) of the Charter in accordance with the Vienna Convention concerning the Law of Treaties? (2) What is the position of the International Court of Justice regarding the anticipatory self-defence? (3) What is the position of other UN apparatuses?

Self-defence against Armed Attacks by Non-State Actors

Abstract Armed attacks in the sense of Article 51 and customary international law can be carried out not only by States, but also by non-State actors (NSA). Self-defensive responses to attacks by NSAs, due to their specific characteristics, may contain a combination of elements of anticipatory self-defence and defensive reprisals. If a State, from the territory of which an attack originates, is unable to prevent an NSA attacking a third State, it has to ask for and to accept the assistance of the victim State, other States, or relevant international organisations. The latter cannot use military force in self-defence in such circumstances without having first sought the consent of the territorial State. However, if a State is unwilling to prevent an NSA, operating from its territory, from attacking third States, it becomes an accessory-after-the-fact to armed attacks of the NSA. Self-defensive, either individual or collective, measures can be carried out on the territory of such a State even without its consent.

Use of Force in Self-Defence for Global Peace: A Conceptual Framework

This paper attempts to link legal and theoretical perspectives of the use of force in self-defence and, thereafter, formulates a conceptual framework based on these two key concepts: use of force as a legitimate right for self-defence and pre-emptive self-defence as an unlawful security doctrine in existing legal structure (UN Charter). The focus is on identifying: i) the primary factors which, in combination as well separately, present a broader view of legal justification for use of force in self-defence and ii) the factors facilitating an unlawful unilateral military action in self-defence. The primary objective is to link both theoretical and legal aspects to formulate a conceptual model. In fact, this study presents an overall picture capable of explaining the key linkage of the use of force in self-defence and breach of international peace, whereby a state launches a pre-emptive attack against another state. 

The Nature of Some Subjects Requires Uniform Regulation and Aviation Is a Prime Example

Determining whether the United States federal government or the individual states govern aviation-related matters is an issue that is integral to any legal analysis involving a US based operator, manufacturer or regulatory body. Resolution of this issue requires application of the preemption doctrine. That doctrine has its roots in the US Constitution and the foundational jurisprudence interpreting same. In recent times, this doctrine has become the subject of an increasingly complex legal analysis. The purpose of this article is to explain why the preemption analysis need not be so complex. A review of the early Supreme Court case law dealing with the inherent power of the federal government to regulate commerce along with the Supreme Court's early cases dealing with aviation regulation demonstrate that a far simpler analysis can be applied. This approach is consistent with the purpose and intent of the framers of the US Constitution and also simple common sense. As former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once said when addressing another constitutional issue involving the power of the States to regulate pornography/free speech, there are some subjects that so obviously require federal regulatory control that you ‘know it when you see it.’

Financial Immigration Federalism

Federal preemption doctrine constrains state power over undocumented immigrants. As courts and commentators focus on disputes over policing and removal, led by sanctuary cities and states, they overlook what I call “financial immigration federalism.” This Article uncovers emerging forms of financial immigration federalism while also reconsidering familiar forms. Federal tax legislation explicitly eliminated certain tax credits to undocumented immigrants, but states continue to explore expanding them—including by incentivizing employment that is considered illegal under federal law. State entities have supported long-term, owner-occupancy mortgages to undocumented immigrants, which the traditional government-sponsored enterprises do not purchase. And undocumented immigrants, including those with legal work authorization, have long been excluded from federal lending markets for higher education, a vacuum that states have filled with divergent policies. In each of these markets, states and localities act to both expand and limit financial options to undocumented immigrants, a form of immigration federalism. To analyze tensions between preemption and state sovereignty at the heart of financial immigration federalism, this Article uncovers the legal questions arising from states extending financial benefits to undocumented immigrants, particularly when conditioned on employment and long-term residency. I argue that competing deference regimes, including to state and local tax policy, should play a role in resolving the constitutionality of subnational financial sanctuary (or purgatory). I also consider the case for incorporating subnational intent, as opposed to just congressional or federal intent, in analyzing financial immigration federalism.

The Shrouded Borderland Between Preemption and Discrimination: A Framework for the Analysis of City Ordinances That Require Proof of Citizenship or Legal Residency as a Condition to Rent a Dwelling Place

In the absence of a comprehensive reform of the federal immigration system, numerous cities, counties, and local governments have passed various local laws and ordinances aimed at addressing the externalities of a growing influx of undocumented immigrants. Recently, there has been a proliferation of local ordinances that establish licensing schemes intended to prohibit a landlord from leasing his property to individuals who lack proof of citizenship or legal immigration status. Three federal circuit courts have addressed potential preemption issues that arise from such ordinances. Due to the lack of clarity in the U.S. Supreme Court’s preemption jurisprudence within the context of immigration law, the three circuits have split over the validity of these local efforts to deny undocumented immigrants the right to basic housing. While one of the federal circuit courts examined in this Note has found such ordinances to not be preempted by federal immigration law, the other two courts to consider the issue have reached the opposite conclusion. In so doing, each federal circuit court decision has relied on the ambiguities of the doctrine of preemption to advance or hinder local laws that discriminate against undocumented foreigners. In light of this background, this Note analyzes the discriminatory implications of such local immigration laws. More importantly, this Note proposes an analytical framework that will offer a unified, non-discriminatory federal answer concerning the authority of state and local governments to adopt laws that encumber undocumented immigrants’ rights to housing.

Vasopressin enhances human preemptive strike in both males and females

The neuropeptide arginine vasopressin (AVP), which is known to modulate a wide range of social behaviors in animals, has been identified as a modulator of various negative responses to social stimuli in humans. However, behavioral evidence directly supporting its involvement in human defensive aggression has been rare. We investigated the effect of intranasal AVP on defensive aggression in a laboratory experiment, using an incentivized economic game called the “preemptive strike game” (PSG). Participants played PSG individually (1 on 1) as well as in pairs (2 on 2) under either AVP or saline. We observed that exogenous but not basal AVP modulated the attack rate in PSG for both male and female participants. A model-based analysis of the aggregation of individual attack preferences into pair decisions revealed that the AVP effect on defensive aggression occurred mainly at the individual level and was not amplified at the pair level. Overall, these results present the first evidence that intranasal AVP promotes human defensive aggression for both males and females in a bilateral situation where each party can potentially damage the resources of the other party. These findings also parallel accumulating evidence from non-human animals concerning AVP’s involvement in territorial defense against potential intruders.

“Clarifying” Murphy’s Law: Did Something Go Wrong in Reconciling Commandeering and Conditional Preemption Doctrines?

“Clarifying” Murphy’s Law: Did Something Go Wrong in Reconciling Commandeering and Conditional Preemption Doctrines?

Absent Friends: Scenes of Address and an Ethic of Self-Making

Why friendship? In what ways does it provide a topic for philosophy or theory? Why friendship now? How might Judith Butler help us to address this question, why ever and from wherever it comes? The title of this panel already suggests some of the reasons one might want or need to reflect on friendship. It appears conjoined there with “kinship” and “ethics of the self.” Kinship as a theme has been problematized, compromised fatally perhaps, by its links to compulsory heterosexuality and to structuralist theories that reinscribe traditional marriage and gender hierarchy in a field of the symbolic that, it is said, is more a matter of culture than nature. This structure is not simply social but rather a transcendental condition of the possibility of language, of culture, even of intelligibility itself.’ The critique of such notions has been advanced in the work of Judith Butler from Gender Trouble through Antigone’ Claim and beyond in lectures, essays and books. What alternatives may we find to systems of kinship that may be “always already heterosexual”? Hegel argued forcefully that family relations, although a necessary complement to civil society in configuring modern ethical life, are transcended by the state-in particular, the modern constitutional state grounded in the recognition of freedom, equality and human rights. However, as Butler forcefully argues in Antigone’s Claim, for Hegel, the ethical status of the state is realized in its capacity to wage war and to ask mothers to sacrifice their sons, wives their husbands, and sisters their brothers in defense of its superior right (and might). By the end of the twentieth century, if not earlier, it had become almost impossible to embrace this alternative to “traditional family values” without buying into the totalizing claims of the national security state with its commitments to preemptive wars against foes with imaginary weapons of mass destruction and to a potentially endless war against nothing less than terror itself.

MON-LB062 A Preemptive Strike at Suspected Primary Aldosteronism in a Medically Underserved Patient

INTRODUCTION: Empiric treatment for primary aldosteronism (PA) and deferring confirmatory biochemical testing may be considered in a medically-underserved patient with high clinical suspicion for PA. CASE: A 29-year-old uninsured male with untreated hypertension, inadequate access to outpatient care, and frequent emergency department (ED) visits presented to the ED with a two-day history of headaches, blurry vision, chest pain, and shortness of breath. He denied muscle cramps, prescription medication use, illicit drug use, or family history of hypertension. His physical exam showed a blood pressure (BP) of 280/140 mmHg, otherwise normal vital signs, and normal cardiopulmonary and neurologic exams. Initial lab studies revealed a low serum potassium (2.2 mEq/L) and elevated serum creatinine (1.4 mg/dL). ECG and serial troponin measurements ruled out acute MI. He was diagnosed with hypertensive emergency with acute kidney injury (AKI) and treated in an ICU setting with potassium repletion and continuous esmolol and nicardipine infusions. With suspicion for PA, morning serum samples for aldosterone and plasma renin activity measurement were collected. The patient was transitioned onto maximum doses of three antihypertensive agents and required continued potassium repletion. Though his AKI resolved his BP remained elevated and, on hospital day #4, he voiced a desire to be discharged at a time his lab evaluation for PA was still pending. With high concern for PA, he was prescribed spironolactone with subsequent improvement in BP and serum potassium. He was discharged with follow up in a local clinic for the uninsured, and his lab evaluation later returned confirming high suspicion for PA. Confirmatory biochemical testing for PA was deferred, CT imaging showed a 2.3 cm right adrenal adenoma, and arrangements were made for right adrenalectomy. CONCLUSIONS: PA is an often underrecognized cause of secondary hypertension that carries significant morbidity. Treatment-resistant hypertension and spontaneous hypokalemia are cardinal features in PA that should prompt a diagnostic evaluation for it. This can be costly, time-consuming, and challenging, however. Medications, hypokalemia, and AKI can result in falsely elevated or suppressed results of biochemical tests used for PA case detection. Further, consensus guidelines indicate confirmatory testing—often to include adrenal venous sampling—should be pursued for many patients for whom PA is suspected based on biochemical case detection results. A patient-centered approach to the evaluation and treatment of PA is essential for medically-underserved patients for whom high clinical suspicion for this diagnosis exists. Unless otherwise noted, all abstracts presented at ENDO are embargoed until the date and time of presentation. For oral presentations, the abstracts are embargoed until the session begins. s presented at a news conference are embargoed until the date and time of the news conference. The Endocrine Society reserves the right to lift the embargo on specific abstracts that are selected for promotion prior to or during ENDO.

미국 대통령의 헌법상 전쟁권한에 대한 국제법 규범 통합에 의한 입법적 규제

The U.S. Constitution accords the President the power to serve as the commander-in-chief of U.S. armed forces and also grants the Congress the power to declare war and the power to provide for and maintain military forces and traditionally brought about debates on the division of war powers between the President and the Congress. The key issue is whether either the President or the Congress has the superior war power. The 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States in 2001 spurred the Bush doctrine. As the debates go through the impact of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the pendulum has considerably swung to the president-centered view.BR In international law, the use of armed force by a state is generally prohibited under UN Charter Article 2(4) and only exceptionally allowed in such a case as self-defense under UN Charter Article 51. The Bush doctrine has caused serious controversies because its underpinning is the expansive view of the right to self-defense: the pre-emptive self-defense. The Bush doctrine justifies the use of force even in the absence of, or not necessarily in an immediate response to, armed attack by a state.BR The U.S. Constitution does not clearly set out whether the President can initiate war in the absence of congressional declaration of war and has left the question unsettled. In practice, the President has exercised his war power expansively and initiated almost all of the wars that the United Stated conducted thus far. This practice has been supported by the inherent prerogative theory and the theory of repetition-based validity.BR In addressing the question of the division of war powers, Judge Jackson’s three-prong test has been able to shed lights on the issue of the constitutionality of the president’s exercise of war powers. This test sets forth three kinds of situation when the constitutionality of the president’s exercise of war power is debated. The President may exercise the war power (i) in pursuance of congressional permission, whether explicit or implicit, (ii) in the absence of congressional permission or opposition, or (iii) in defiance of congressional intention, whether explicit or implicit. Through these three situations, the presumption of constitutionality of the President’s power ranges from the maximum to the minimum.BR The U.S. Congress enacted the War Powers Resolution in the aftermath of the Vietnam War in order to restrain the President’s exercise of war powers and also passed the Authorization for the Use of Military Force(AUMF) in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The critical loophole has been that the Supreme Court in practice has avoided to carry out the judicial review on presidential acts of war on the basis of the political question doctrine.BR Given that the UN Charter and rules of international law specify conditions under which the right of self-defense can be limitedly exercised, an alternative way of restraining the president’s exercise of war power may be to incorporate such rules as necessity and proportionality into domestic legislations. It can harmonize both the needs for addressing new security threats such as terrorism and the regulatory demand for restraining the use of armed force, in a manner that respects the principle of separation of powers and the principle of checks and balances.

Article The problem of nuclear proliferation and its impact on the formula of strategic balance in the Middle East after the events of September 11, 2001

The issue of nuclear proliferation is one of the most vital issues as it reflects a form of dealing in the field of international relations. Therefore, the Middle East region has taken great interest in reducing the levels of nuclear armament and acquiring nuclear power within the strategic framework of the international and regional powers. The establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East region is currently one of the most important international and regional arrangements for controlling the levels of nuclear proliferation and attempting to build a state of stability and balance. In the Middle East and the world. The importance of the research comes from the fact that it deals with an important and vital issue: the issue of nuclear proliferation and its implications for the equation of the strategic balance in the Middle East after the events of September 11, 2001, which gained great importance in the post-cold war era. And to achieve some kind of stability and balance within the framework of the international and regional environment, especially in the Middle East, which has increased the importance of efforts in this regard the proliferation of nuclear weapons to new countries, it is possible to obtain nuclear technology by enhancing levels The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction has become one of the most important facts for the post-Cold War era. At a time when only five countries possessed nuclear weapons (the United States, Russia, China, France and Britain) , As well as the possibility of other countries such as India, Pakistan and Israel, which suggests that the post-Cold War era has seen a widening of the circle of States possessing or manufacturing such weapons (Pakistan, North Korea and Iran) The emergence of regional tensions as in the case of William Middle East. Thus, the issue of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction has become a central issue in the context of the post-Cold War American strategy, especially after the events of September 11, 2001, as a result of the convictions that there is an interrelationship between the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the global fight against terrorism. In keeping with this, the research started from the premise that the continuity of the Middle East countries in seeking to acquire nuclear capabilities is in itself an essential brake or determinant of the establishment of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction, as well as the lack of guarantees to establish security among countries The Middle East, which is reflected negatively on the regional and international security approaches to the Middle East, and of course lead to the adoption of their respective security policies against each other within the framework of the growing levels of nuclear weapons to achieve some kind of balance towards the nuclear capabilities of each of these countries And then more nuclear armament policies in the region, as a result can not promote positive security perceptions that are based on the employment of enablers of smart power, which is reflected negatively on the strategic balance in the territory of the Middle East equation. Keywords: nuclear proliferation, the Middle East, strategic balance, the events of September 11, 2001, regional and international security, doctrine of preemptive war, preemptive war, nuclear deterrence, strategic perception, terrorism, nuclear power Nuclear proliferation.