The Fall 2010 issue of the Military Law Review is now online here.  While I haven’t had a chance to read it yet, several of the articles appear to be fascinating. 

The lead article is Samuael Brenner’s, “I Am a Bit Sickened”:  Examining Archetypes of Congressional War Crimes Oversight After My Lai and Abu Ghraib, 205 Mil. L. Rev. 1 (2010).  The next article is Major Christian L. Deichert’s Is Germany the New Canada?  One American Deserter’s Request for German Asylum, 205 Mil. L. Rev. 94 (2010).  The next article is Major James T. Hill, Achieving Transparency in the Military Panel Selection Process with the Preselection Method, 205 Mil. L. Rev. 117 (2010).  And while not directly onpoint for military justice purposes, military lawyers will nevertheless be interested in the fabulous Professor Jack Goldsmith’s Solf-Warren Lecture in International and Operational Law, Reflections on Government Lawyering, 205 Mil. L. Rev. 192 (2010).

7 Responses to “Fall 2010 Military Law Review online”

  1. Balkan Ghost says:

    I just read Udi Sagl’s excellent paper. By showing that enlistment contracts are not subject to specific enforcement under contract law because they are for personal services, he has laid the groundwork for some interesting motions practice on Art 85 and 85 cases.

  2. Balkan Ghost says:

    I meant to type: Art 85 and 86 challenges to subject matter jurisdiction

  3. John O'Connor says:

    Yep, because military judges tend to follow law review articles over the UCMJ and MCM.

  4. Balkan Ghost says:

    Even though this was not written by the one person you seem interested in reading (Fred Borch), I still think you may find this to be a worthy read, Mr. O’Connor. It is original and very well written.

    Next for me is Deichert’s.

  5. Phil Cave says:

    BG, when you get to Deichert’s let us know how you see it all fitting within the NATO SOFA obligations.

  6. John O'Connor says:

    Balkan Ghost:

    My admiration for all things written by Fred Borch (I’m either impressed or horrified that you noticed) does not come to the exclusion of other good scholarly writing. I read Sagl’s paper, and found it interesting. But even the author more or less acknowledges that his view of the availability of specific performance of an enlistment contract has no effect on the availability of criminal sanction for UA or desertion.

    My comment was not a criticism of the paper, but of the notion that it should lead to interesting court-martial motions practice (which it won’t).

  7. Christian Deichert says:

    Update on the story behind my article: Germany has denied Shepherd’s asylum bid. Nice of them to wait until after my article was published, I think.