|
Showing 1 - 4 of
4 matches in All Departments
A look inside the weaponization of social media, and an innovative
proposal for protecting Western democracies from information
warfare. When Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram were first
introduced to the public, their mission was simple: they were
designed to help people become more connected to each other. Social
media became a thriving digital space by giving its users the
freedom to share whatever they wanted with their friends and
followers. Unfortunately, these same digital tools are also easy to
manipulate. As exemplified by Russia's interference in the 2016
U.S. presidential election, authoritarian states can exploit social
media to interfere with democratic governance in open societies.
Tyrants on Twitter is the first detailed analysis of how Chinese
and Russian agents weaponize Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and
YouTube to subvert the liberal international order. In addition to
examining the 2016 U.S. election, David L. Sloss explores Russia's
use of foreign influence operations to threaten democracies in
Europe, as well as China's use of social media and other digital
tools to meddle in Western democracies and buttress autocratic
rulers around the world. Sloss calls for cooperation among
democratic governments to create a new transnational system for
regulating social media to protect Western democracies from
information warfare. Drawing on his professional experience as an
arms control negotiator, he outlines a novel system of
transnational governance that Western democracies can enforce by
harmonizing their domestic regulations. And drawing on his academic
expertise in constitutional law, he explains why that system—if
implemented by legislation in the United States—would be
constitutionally defensible, despite likely First Amendment
objections. With its critical examination of information warfare
and its proposal for practical legislative solutions to fight back,
this book is essential reading in a time when disinformation
campaigns threaten to undermine democracy.
From its earliest decisions in the 1790s, the U.S. Supreme Court
has used international law to help resolve major legal
controversies. This book presents a comprehensive account of the
Supreme Court's use of international law from its inception to the
present day. Addressing treaties, the direct application of
customary international law and the use of international law as an
interpretive tool, this book examines all the cases or lines of
cases in which international law has played a material role,
showing how the Court's treatment of international law both changed
and remained consistent over the period. Although there was
substantial continuity in the Supreme Court's international law
doctrine through the end of the nineteenth century, the past
century has been a time of tremendous doctrinal change. Few aspects
of the Court's international law doctrine remain the same in the
twenty-first century as they were two hundred years ago.
From its earliest decisions in the 1790s, the U.S. Supreme Court
has used international law to help resolve major legal
controversies. This book presents a comprehensive account of the
Supreme Court's use of international law from the Court's inception
to the present day. Addressing treaties, the direct application of
customary international law, and the use of international law as an
interpretive tool, the book examines all the cases or lines of
cases in which international law has played a material role,
showing how the Court's treatment of international law both changed
and remained consistent over the period. Although there was
substantial continuity in the Supreme Court's international law
doctrine through the end of the nineteenth century, the past
century was a time of tremendous doctrinal change. Few aspects of
the Court's international law doctrine remain the same in the
twenty-first century as they were two hundred years ago.
This book provides the first detailed history of the Constitution's
treaty supremacy rule. It describes a process of invisible
constitutional change. The treaty supremacy rule was a bedrock
principle of constitutional law for more than 150 years. It
provided that treaties are supreme over state law and that courts
have a constitutional duty to apply treaties that conflict with
state laws. The rule ensured that state governments did not violate
U.S. treaty obligations without authorization from the federal
political branches. In 1945, the United States ratified the UN
Charter, which obligates nations to promote human rights for all
without distinction as to race. In 1950, a California court applied
the Charters human rights provisions along with the traditional
supremacy rule to invalidate a state law that discriminated against
Japanese nationals. The implications were shocking: the decision
implied that the United States had abrogated Jim Crow laws
throughout the South by ratifying the UN Charter. Conservatives
reacted by lobbying for a constitutional amendment, known as the
Bricker Amendment, to abolish the treaty supremacy rule. The
amendment never passed, but Bricker's supporters achieved their
goals through de facto constitutional change. Before 1945, the
treaty supremacy rule was a mandatory constitutional rule that
applied to all treaties. The de facto Bricker Amendment converted
the rule into an optional rule that applies only to self-executing
treaties. Under the modern rule, state governments are allowed to
violate national treaty obligationsincluding international human
rights obligationsthat are embodied in non-self-executing treaties.
|
|