Scholars have addressed restrictions on individual liberty, or deprivations thereof, that do not entail prison or jail—including area restrictions, revoking driver’s licenses, and GPS bracelets. In all legal domains, the effects of these measures on the lives of targeted individuals can be significant, primarily with respect to their capability to guide their own behavior. Some are applied categorically rather than individually, do not involve a fair trial or hearing, or are applied preventively or after the targeted individual has completed a (...) prison sentence. My aim in this article is to extend our view from prison as the quintessential method of depriving individuals of their liberty to control of individuals without locking them up. I address degrees of individual liberty and inquire into legal protections for individuals who are partially free but deprived of liberty in some areas of life. (shrink)

Theorists of criminal law widely agree that state punishment involves harsh treatment and stigma and that states must therefore provide protections for targeted individuals. But certain regulatory...

Criminal law theorists have for the most part neglected the question of why imprisonment requires special legal safeguards for those targeted. The few scholars who have addressed this question have focused on how prison facilities restrict freedom of movement, control over one’s daily life, and access to particular human functioning, but they have ignored state measures that do not include confining individuals behind bars. I defend an alternative account: I argue that the use of prison facilities is part of a (...) raft of state measures, which includes measures that have a relatively minor impact on individuals and others that are more severe. What matters, in deciding what legal safeguards individuals should have against what kinds of state imposition, is how severely a measure impacts on the normal life of those subjected to it. This impact-based approach enables us to decouple the concept of imprisonment from walls, locks, and political and social barriers, thereby highlighting atypical forms of imprisonment, such as open prisons, as well as potential forms of imprisonment to be employed outside of prison, including house arrest. For instance, a person confined to a prison facility can, to a certain extent, be free to take part in society, or a person subject to other state measures can reside at home but be constrained from carrying out a major part of her activities. The account I defend enables us to identify imprisoned individuals as well as those subjected to measures similar to imprisonment, which has potential consequences for their legal rights. (shrink)

This article examines preventive constraints on suspected terrorists that can lead to restrictions on liberty similar to imprisonment and disrespect the target’s autonomy. In particular, it focuses on two examples: travel bans and asset freezes. It seeks to develop guidelines for setting appropriate limits on their future use. Preventive constraints do not generate legal protections as constraints in response to conduct do. In addition, these constraints are often seen as a permissible alternative to imprisonment. Still, preventive de facto detentions, or (...) what I term “exprisonments”, imperil the free and autonomous life of the targeted person. With the recognition that such constraints can infringe on one’s ability to lead a free and autonomous life, this article argues that some of these constraints require similar protections as their counterparts that put persons under lock and key. (shrink)

Book Review: Ahmed Al Dawoody, The Islamic Law of War - Justifications and Regulations -.

The desire to defend a state against attacks by a non-state actor requires thinking about counter-attacking without violating the sovereign equality of the territorial state because targeting a non-state actor on the territory of that state may violate its sovereignty. This paper evaluates the main views on self-defense by states against non-state actors by studying the Just War Theory and argues that self-defense against a non-state actor is allowed if the counter-attack complies with the principle of sovereign equality. Sovereign equality (...) is the prohibition of states from dominion over other states because states are equal to one another. This principle can be respected by allowing self-defense against non-state actors to occur only if the state consented to the use of force on its territory or if that state is incapable of controlling or unwilling to control the non-state actor. (shrink)

Book Review: Noam Lubell, Extraterritorial Use of Force against Non-State Actors.