Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
Richard Epstein examines the constitutional, statutory, and international-law implications of the Trump administration’s recent strikes on vessels in the Caribbean alleged to be transporting “narco-terrorists.” Epstein outlines the traditional separation of war powers, emphasizing the limits on unilateral executive action and the enduring constraints imposed by international norms governing the use of force, self-defense, and the treatment of noncombatants. Their discussion highlights key precedents in maritime and public international law, the challenges of applying long-standing legal doctrines to modern security threats, and the potential domestic and geopolitical consequences of executive overreach.
Discussion (3)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
What are the consequences of executive under reach?
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
International norms are less of a legitimate source of law than Norm from Cheers.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Funny how we're now going to lean heavily on international "law" that has been roundly trounced by Richard in other settings, over the years.
I had to shut this crap off. And that's saying something, because I generally love listening to Richard talk. It was more of a justification trolling for why killing bad guys is a bad thing, when that precedent has been set a lot already, but was specifically left out of the conversation. We've killed criminal elements through central and south America for decades with no declaration of war or other authorizing paperwork, because a) we know who the bad guys are, and b) they are the bad guys.
If it makes Richard feel any better he can rent a yacht to attend their funeral services, to be held at sea.