English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

On July 4, 2006, just five days after the Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld,' prosecuting attorneys Professor Neal Katyal of Georgetown University Law Center and Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift flew to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (Guantanamo) to meet their client, Salim Hamdan, and tell him the Supreme Court declared the military commissions he was to be tried under unconstitutional.2 While explaining their seminal victory to Hamdan, they said that "[i] n 50 to 100 years, law students will be reading this case and reading your name."3 Hamdan responded that " [m] aybe I'll change my name. I just want to go home."' While Hamdan's resignation is understandable considering his five-year confinement at Guantanamo, the legal community believed Katyal and Swift did the impossible.' They won a case striking down a judicial system that deprived its participants of constitutional rights.6 In eight Military Commissions Instructions (MCI No. 1-8), the Department of Defense (DOD) delineated procedures to guide the

The Unilateral Creation of International Law During the "War on Terror:" Murder by an Unprivileged Belligerent Is Not a War Crime