Matthew C. Waxman examines whether cyberattacks are a use of force as defined by the UN Charter.

Civil liberties will present the winner of the 2012 U.S. presidential elections with challenges related to counterterrorism powers and practices, as well as challenges related to privacy rights, says CFR's Matthew C. Waxman.

Recent events in Darfur raise the familiar question of whether international law facilitates the kind of early, decisive, and coherent action needed to effectively combat genocide. Matthew C. Waxman argues that putting decisions about international intervention solely in the hands of the UN Security Council risks undermining the threat or use of intervention when it may be most potent in stopping mass atrocities.

Any external military intervention in Syria in response to government use of chemical weapons will require persuasive arguments to prove legitimacy, says CFR's Matthew Waxman.

Matthew Waxman argues that closing the facility would cause the Obama administration to spend a great deal of political capital, but would actually leave some of the most difficult issues unresolved.

While the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has granted U.S. agencies broad legal authority to collect sensitive information, it is hardly a "rubber stamp" for government surveillance requests, says CFR's Matt Waxman.

As a matter of international law, humanitarian intervention—such as the use of military force to protect foreign populations from mass atrocities or gross human rights abuses—is permissible if authorized by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Although many Western governments have taken the position that such intervention may in some cases be morally justified even if not authorized by the Security Council, most states and international legal experts do not regard that as lawful.

Read full answer

When does a cyber-attack (or threat of cyber-attack) give rise to a right of self-defense – including armed self-defense – and when should it? This essay examines these questions through three lenses: (1) a legal perspective, to examine the range of reasonable interpretations of self-defense rights as applied to cyber-attacks, and the relative merits of interpretations within that range; (2) a strategic perspective, to link a purported right of armed self-defense to long-term policy interests including security and stability; and (3) a political perspective, to consider the situational context in which government decision-makers will face these issues and predictive judgments about the reactions to cyber-crises of influential actors in the international system.

Matt Waxman argues that even if President Obama is able close Guantanamo, nothing he has done so far will prevent the creation of another detention facility.

Matthew Waxman discusses the new CFR Task Force Report, Defending an Open, Global, Secure, and Resilient Internet.

In President Obama's upcoming counterterrorism speech, Robert Chesney and Matthew Waxman explain that the president should focus on three areas that his administration has not followed through in a serious way: closing Guantanamo, working with Congress to put forceful counterterrorism actions on sound legal footing, and making targeted killing more transparent.

Secretary of State John Kerry said the United States will hold the Syrian government accountable for the use of chemical weapons on civilians. CFR's Matthew C. Waxman highlights three sets of considerations for U.S. intervention in the country's ongoing civil war.

A number of countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Turkey, and Qatar, have been providing support to the opposition in various forms, ranging from humanitarian aid to military supplies, such as weapons, armor, and communication devices. However, these efforts have not been enough to turn the tide, and after three years of fighting, a diplomatic solution still seems unlikely.

Read full answer

Grounded in a realistic assessment of technology, Matthew C. Waxman and Kenneth Anderson outline a practical alternative with which to evaluate the use of autonomous weaponry that incorporates codes of conduct based on traditional legal and ethical principles governing weapons and warfare.

Matthew Waxman writes, "the result of shifting control to the Pentagon will likely be a more sustainable, if perhaps more restrained and formalized, long-term policy of targeted killing."

Matthew Waxman discusses the Washington Post's recent editorial page U.S. cyber-strategy debate on his blog, Lawfare.

A leaked government document has recharged the controversy over the use of lethal force against U.S. citizens. CFR's Matthew C. Waxman highlights three legal considerations.

In order to gain more congressional support for national security and foreign policy measures, "The Obama administration will need to pick its legislative priorities more deliberately, engage with allies and opponents in Congress more actively, and be willing to negotiate compromises or wage aggressive campaigns on key issues," says Matthew C. Waxman.

Kenneth Anderson and Matthew C. Waxman say some view automated technology developments as a crisis for the laws of war. But provided we start now to incorporate ethical and legal norms into weapons design, the incremental movement from automation to genuine machine autonomy already underway might well be made to serve the ends of law on the battlefield.

Matthew C. Waxman argues that international law still plays a powerful role in justifying or delegitimizing the case for military action. Just like in the Cuban missile crisis, the United States needs to present a plausible case for self-defense in order to strike Iran.

Post-9/11 U.S. counterterrorism and surrounding civil liberties issues are unlikely to stray far from currently policy no matter who is in the White House in 2013, says CFR's Matthew Waxman.

The NYPD's new "Domain Awareness System" raises familiar questions about privacy and transparency that are likely to spark a debate at multiple levels of government, writes CFR's Matthew Waxman.

Targeted killings are up in Yemen and military trials have resumed in Guantanamo. CFR's Matthew Waxman assesses the White House's evolving legal basis for its war on al-Qaeda.