The Iran-United States Tribunal has recently celebrated its 25th anniversary. Although it has resolved all of the cases brought by private claimants, it is still likely to be many more years before the Tribunal is able to complete the remaining government-to-government cases on its docket. There are multiple reasons why so much time will be required: the pending cases are extremely complex, the governments brief them slowly, and the Tribunal's decision-making process itself is slow. There does not for the foreseeable future appear to be an alternative to continued litigation, because the prospects of a global settlement of the remaining claims before the Tribunal are remote. The parties face challenges in developing reasonable assessments of the legal and economic costs and benefits of settlement. Beyond this, the strained political relations between the United States and Iran would make even a legally and economically rationale settlement extremely difficult to achieve. The challenge facing the Tribunal in the remaining years of its existence, in which the Iran and United States are the only parties before it, is to continue to decide cases in a principled fashion on the basis of the law and the facts, and to resist the temptation to reach compromise decisions in the interests of political expediency.

What makes a "war"? Professor Weiner argues that the self-styled "war on terror" launched by the United States against al-Qaeda and other terrorist entities mischaracterizes the nature of the conflict. This mischaracterization is not merely a matter of semantics, but has been used to vest the Executive Branch with substantial legal powers only available in wartime. Although Professor Weiner acknowledges certain important similarities between the "war on terror" and conventional forms of armed conflict, he submits that the Executive Branch has chosen not to accept wartime's legal duties even as it claims wartime rights in the fight against terrorism. Professor Weiner criticizes the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to the Guantanamo detainees. Although this ruling extended some limited protections to the Guantanamo detainees, it effectively endorses the Executive Branch's assertion of sweeping wartime powers in the fight against terrorism. Finally, Professor Weiner argues that the potentially unbounded character of the conflict against terrorism creates powerful reasons for the Judiciary to apply traditional principles of checks and balances and to limit Executive Branch powers in this new "war on terror."

These days, it's rare to pick up a newspaper and not see a story related to intelligence. From the investigations of the 9/11 commission, to accusations of illegal wiretapping, to debates on whether it's acceptable to torture prisoners for information, intelligence—both accurate and not—is driving domestic and foreign policy. And yet, in part because of its inherently secretive nature, intelligence has received very little scholarly study. Into this void comes Reforming Intelligence, a timely collection of case studies written by intelligence experts, and sponsored by the Center for Civil-Military Relations (CCMR) at the Naval Postgraduate School, that collectively outline the best practices for intelligence services in the United States and other democratic states.

Reforming Intelligence suggests that intelligence is best conceptualized as a subfield of civil-military relations, and is best compared through institutions. The authors examine intelligence practices in the United States, United Kingdom, and France, as well as such developing democracies as Brazil, Taiwan, Argentina, and Russia. While there is much more data related to established democracies, there are lessons to be learned from states that have created (or re-created) intelligence institutions in the contemporary political climate. In the end, reading about the successes of Brazil and Taiwan, the failures of Argentina and Russia, and the ongoing reforms in the United States yields a handful of hard truths. In the murky world of intelligence, that's an unqualified achievement.

The terrible wake-up call of 9/11 brought homeland security and homeland defense into full focus for a nation ill-prepared for the threat of transnational terrorism. Our nation has done much to meet that threat, yet much more still needs to be done. Balancing security concerns against those of individual liberties, ensuring parallel commitments to law enforcement and defense remain complementary but distinct, are just two of the issues of concern. In this spirit, the U.S. Army War College’s Center for Strategic Leadership partnered with The George Washington University, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Heritage Foundation to conduct the first annual Homeland Defense/Homeland Security conference. The conference was an ambitious endeavor, designed to draw on a cross-section of experience from the partner institutions, their supporters, and their audiences in addressing the issues at hand. This volume is a reflection of those discussions.

About the book:

Former Governor of Illinois, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, and twice unsuccessful Democratic candidate for President of the United States, Adlai Stevenson played a key role in American politics through out much of the middle of the twentieth century. This collection of essays from Senator Eugene McCarthy, Senator Adlai Stevenson III, Ambassador George Bunn, Brian Urquhart, Arthur Schlesinger, and others, looks at Stevenson's past and current societal significance.

This chapter examines the Soviet factor in ending the Pacific War. It presents a long and broad perspective on Moscow's motivations in participating in the war, going back to the historical Russo-Japanese rivalry and to the end of Soviet operations in the Kurils immediately after the war.