Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This paper is part of a larger project considering the impact that the doctrine of state sovereign immunity has for all involved, both states and those who are denied relief. What happens when courts no longer provide an avenue for relief against the government? In this paper, I explore the implications of sovereign immunity by examining the consequences of a series of sovereign immunity cases from the 1790s. The plaintiffs range from land speculators to loyalists to Dutch financiers to the Prince of Luxembourg. I find two key factors that influence whether the plaintiffs have any success after the Court dismisses their case- resources and political support. Where both are present, the removal of legal recourse serves little purpose and is largely ineffective. Where plaintiffs lack political support, however, they are unlikely to be successful. This suggests that sovereign immunity is an effective defense for states only against those who lack resources or political capital- precisely those groups most in need of access to the courts.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: How great an effort does the U.S. military make to avoid civilian casualties in contemporary military campaigns (e.g. Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq)? This paper seeks to answer that question and, in doing so, provide an explanation for the degree of American compliance with the norm of non-combatant immunity outlined in the Geneva Conventions. I contend that the degree of compliance with the norm of non-combatant immunity is much higher than is often recognized. This compliance stems from the intersection of three dynamics: (1) the way in which the norm has become embedded in American strategic culture (in particular, how U.S. decision-makers conceive of the national interest and the goals of warfare in the post-Cold War period); (2) the internalization of the norm within the organizational culture of the U.S. military; and (3) pressure from domestic and transnational civil society.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Recent work in international relations has suggested that norms and law can sometimes hold a constraining effect in the realm of international security, contra the expectations of realist theories. This paper evaluates U.S. compliance with one such norm, that of noncombatant immunity, in recent military engagements, while articulating a general theory of state compliance with international law. In contrast to recent work that finds a high level of compliance with the norm of noncombatant immunity in the ongoing Iraq conflict, I argue, drawing evidence from several recent but concluded conflicts, that a more complete assessment of compliance must begin by considering the contentious aspects of a norm�s definition. After probing the sources of ambiguity and interpretive dispute in the international law of noncombatant immunity, I argue that U.S. compliance with the norm of noncombatant immunity in the First Gulf War and the Kosovo intervention paralleled the clarity of the relevant normative obligation. Where clarity was high (such as on the obligation not to intentionally target groups of civilians), U.S. compliance was likewise high, whereas where the obligation remained ambiguous (such as on the necessary precautions required to avoid unintentional but expected civilian casualties), U.S. compliance was more limited. I then present a theory suggesting that states may make strategic use of normative ambiguity to balance a minimum level of politically useful compliance with other competing goals, such as force protection and military effectiveness. The paper concludes by considering what these findings suggest about the role of norms in international security.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: I adopt a sociological “contagious” approach to examining district-to-district policy diffusion. This will increase our understanding of policy expansion by providing a larger geographic sample than traditional studies of states.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This paper is part of a larger project considering the impact that the doctrine of state sovereign immunity has for all involved, both states and those who are denied relief. What happens when courts no longer provide an avenue for relief against the government? In this paper, I explore the implications of sovereign immunity by examining the consequences of six recent Supreme Court cases. The cases involve issues ranging from gambling to disabilities law and provide a sense of the varying types of responses. I find that when sovereign immunity is invoked in cases against groups or individuals with resources and political capital, the plaintiffs resort to alternate political means to achieve their ends, often at the cost of the states. Sovereign immunity is an effective defense for states only against those who lack resources or political capital- precisely those groups most in need of access to the courts.