Hamdan v. Rumsfeld: A Bad Decision With the Best of Intentions. Why the Court Was Wrong in Interpreting the Geneva Conventions and What Should Be Done.ExpressO (2007)
AbstractThis casenote states that the Court’s decision erroneously interpreted the Geneva Conventions to apply to members of al Qaeda. The court held that Common Article 3, which applies to conflicts not international in scope, applies to members of al Qaeda. My casenote argues that Common Article 3 does not apply but instead Common Article 2 should apply, because Common Article 2 applies to conflicts that are international in nature. As such Common Article 2 would apply, but does not apply to members of al Qaeda since they are a non-state international actor and do not meet the criteria established for non-state actors. My casenote purposes that the current Geneva Conventions should be updated in order to provide a minimal level of protection for all people involved in a conflict with a signatory to the Conventions.
Publication DateFebruary, 2007
Citation InformationMatthew R Sonn. "Hamdan v. Rumsfeld: A Bad Decision With the Best of Intentions. Why the Court Was Wrong in Interpreting the Geneva Conventions and What Should Be Done." ExpressO (2007)
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/matthew_sonn/1/