Sentences with phrase «use of military force»

When the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was challenged in court, it was determined to be legal.

The Iraq Resolution known as «AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002» cites national policy, a war on «terrorism», and United Nations Security Council Resolutions to justify authorization of military force against Iraq, but I am not aware of any document by which the United States has been legally bound by a declaration of war against Iraq as per the federal Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11).

Rangel, who has criticized Obama's use of military force in Libya, attended the president's Harlem events.

The differences can be seen across a variety of official and nonofficial statements of the Catholic perspective in recent debates over uses of military force.

Whereas the former sees a world filled with dangers that can best be managed through the strategic use of military force, the latter believes that the world (or at least Western Europe) has entered a Kantian era of perpetual peace in which virtually all disputes can be contained using international organizations.

It retains a beguiling soft power, achieved through a long - standing yet imperfect allegiance to liberty and democracy, and an intimidating hard power, achieved through the active use of military force.

If that were not in place, the War Powers Act, which, ironically, was meant to set boundaries on the Executive Branch use of military force, would still allow for this action, in all probability.

Regardless of where you stand on these strikes, there is no question that President Trump must come before Congress and seek an Authorization for Use of Military Force before any escalation of this conflict.

Within the USA, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists is so broad as to be a rubber - stamp for any action by the president.

Also under the War on Terror, there is an Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists that can be issued.

«The president should not act on his own, as there is no declaration of war or authorization for the use of military force against Syria.

The AUMF, or Authorization for Use of Military Force, was used first in 2001 by President George W. Bush when the U.S. deployed forces to Afghanistan.

As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well - established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat.»

The leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee are set to unveil a bipartisan resolution authorizing the use of military force overseas.

The findings that indicate many Americans have a dim outlook on Islam come as President Obama sent a formal request to Congress on Wednesday to authorize the use of military force to combat the Islamic State.

Will a modern president actually use restraint the use of military force abroad?

One matter that has been morally muddied in recent decades should now be clarified: those who in principle oppose the use of military force have no legitimate part in the discussion about how military force should be used.

U.S. strategists are convinced that the United States has «vital» interests - i.e., interests that might need to be defended through the use of military force - in nearly every one of these hot spots.»

The mainstream of Christian ethics has contended that there can be a legitimate or «just» use of military force — legitimacy being determined by a variety of factors, such as the presence of a «just cause,» «right authority,» «last resort,» and the use of «means proportional to the end.»

A decade ago humanitarian intervention, defined by Brian Lepard as «the use of military force to protect the victims of human rights violations,» seemed...

In their editorial «In a Time of War» (December 2001), the editors of First Things declare: «One matter that has been muddied in recent decades should now be clarified: Those who in principle oppose the use of military force have no legitimate part in the discussion about how military force should be used.»

The unipolarist ideology by whatever name, adds a fourth party to the foreign - policy debate, which has otherwise involved 1) liberal internationalists, who seek world peace and stability by securing collective agreements from nation states to comply with international law; 2) realists, who seek to ensure a balance of power among competing regimes; and 3) principled anti-interventionists, who renounce the use of military force for all reasons besides self - defense.

Perhaps it's also important to say here that, at least in my mind, you were not wrong to object to the sentence in the First Things editorial which said that «those who in principle oppose the use of military force have no legitimate part in the discussion about how military force should be used.»

A decade ago humanitarian intervention, defined by Brian Lepard as «the use of military force to protect the victims of human rights violations,» seemed to be a policy whose time had come.

But a cyber-speed debate broke out over almost every other aspect of the campaign — sparking a discussion about the best policy, advocacy's role, white man's burden, interventionism, and the use of military force.

There are treaties and treatises out there that inform efforts to articulate what constitutes international law, but there is no world legislature out there, and there is no court with the power to issue decisions to any country in the world that will be observed without the use of military force on a wide array of issues.

This book represents the first comparative study of the politics behind the scenes at the United Nations, NATO and the European Union concerning the use of military force.

Even if Congress and the Courts robustly interpreted the Act (which they don't) to try and reign in presidential use of force, the letter of that law states that the president must notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action, and forbids the forces from remaining for more than 60 days without specific authorization for use of military force.

Use of military force without Congressional authorization is a far more contentious issue, but this did not happen during the Iraq War.

USA law has an «Authorization for the Use of Military Force» that can be issued by congress (I think?)

President Obama formally submitted a draft resolution authorizing the use of military force in Syria to both houses of Congress on Saturday.

Republicans favored giving President George W. Bush unprecedented power under the Authorization for Use of Military Force against Terrorists in 2001.