نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
دانشیار گروه حقوق عمومی و بین الملل دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله English
نویسنده English
Some presidents of the United States of America, in response to a state of emergency and in order to ensure national security, have made decisions that have conflicted with the fundamental rights of individuals and the principle of separation of powers. This study answers the question: Given the position of judicial oversight and the principle of checks and balances in the presidential system of the United States, does the Supreme Court's practice in national security cases ensure the fundamental rights of individuals and the principle of separation of powers? This article examines three important and procedural decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases known as "Youngston Steel Seizure", "Curtis-Wright", and "Dems & Moore v. Reagan". The Supreme Court, using distinct criteria and distinguishing between the internal and external dimensions of national security, relying on extensive interpretative methods, analyzes the external dimension of national security within the framework of "foreign policy" and believes that the president has extensive authority as the "commander in chief" and the only "representative of the nation" in international relations.ted interpretation of the
کلیدواژهها English
