The objective of this thesis is to explore and analyze some of the major difficulties, challenges, and debates involved with the issue over which status and rights to afford to those detained in the War on Terrorism, in particular the Guantánamo detainees. Unlike conflicts of the past, the War on Terrorism is being waged against very unconventional enemies. Because of this, the Bush Administration, foreign governments, human rights groups, and both governmental and non-governmental organizations are currently engaged in a critical debate over which legal status and rights should be afforded to these enemies upon their detention. If any agreement is to be made regarding the legal status of the Guantánamo detainees, it is important to obtain a basic understanding of the issue itself as well as both sides of the debate. In order to do this, three core issues are explored. Firstly, what are President Bushs strategic reasons for refusing to grant the Guantánamo detainees prisoner of war (POW) status and what are the steps that the Administration has taken to ensure that its strategies in approaching the War on Terror are protected? Secondly, what are the counter arguments to the Bush Administrations position, who is voicing these arguments, and why? Finally, what impact does the Administrations position have on how and to what extent the War on Terror is waged? Once these questions have been explored, the thesis concludes that the Bush Administrations approach to the War on Terror has proven to be reckless. The security threat posed by terrorism should not obscure the importance of human rights. An anti-terrorism policy that ignores human rights is a gift to terrorists. It reaffirms the violent instrumentation that breeds terrorism as it undermines the public support needed to defeat it. A strong human rights policy that respects the detainees right to due process and to not be subjected to torture, cannot replace the actions of security forces, but is an essential complement. A successful anti-terrorism policy must endeavor to build strong international norms and institutions based on human rights, not provide a new rationale for avoiding and undermining them. If the Bush Administration remains on its present path, the rights of the Guantánamo detainees will continue to be violated and, as a result, threaten the rights of others who depend on the fair application of the law.

The objective of this thesis is to explore and analyze some of the major difficulties, challenges, and debates involved with the issue over which status and rights to afford to those detained in the War on Terrorism, in particular the Guantánamo detainees. Unlike conflicts of the past, the War on Terrorism is being waged against very unconventional enemies. Because of this, the Bush Administration, foreign governments, human rights groups, and both governmental and non-governmental organizations are currently engaged in a critical debate over which legal status and rights should be afforded to these enemies upon their detention. If any agreement is to be made regarding the legal status of the Guantánamo detainees, it is important to obtain a basic understanding of the issue itself as well as both sides of the debate. In order to do this, three core issues are explored. Firstly, what are President Bushs strategic reasons for refusing to grant the Guantánamo detainees prisoner of war (POW) status and what are the steps that the Administration has taken to ensure that its strategies in approaching the War on Terror are protected? Secondly, what are the counter arguments to the Bush Administrations position, who is voicing these arguments, and why? Finally, what impact does the Administrations position have on how and to what extent the War on Terror is waged? Once these questions have been explored, the thesis concludes that the Bush Administrations approach to the War on Terror has proven to be reckless. The security threat posed by terrorism should not obscure the importance of human rights. An anti-terrorism policy that ignores human rights is a gift to terrorists. It reaffirms the violent instrumentation that breeds terrorism as it undermines the public support needed to defeat it. A strong human rights policy that respects the detainees right to due process and to not be subjected to torture, cannot replace the actions of security forces, but is an essential complement. A successful anti-terrorism policy must endeavor to build strong international norms and institutions based on human rights, not provide a new rationale for avoiding and undermining them. If the Bush Administration remains on its present path, the rights of the Guantánamo detainees will continue to be violated and, as a result, threaten the rights of others who depend on the fair application of the law.

For over two decades, the United States imprisoned and detained hundreds of suspected terrorists at the United States Naval Base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. While many of these prisoners were suspected of being terrorists, no formal charges were ever levied against the detainees. All of the prisoners detained were considered non-citizens of the United States. They were not citizens of either Cuba or the United States. Instead, they were citizens of another country. While the legal precedent in the United States' territorial jurisdiction is that non-citizens are granted specific Constitutional rights, Guantánamo Bay was a legal black hole to which the United States had not claimed territorial jurisdiction. This paper seeks to understand if the prisoners at Guantánamo Bay held any Constitutional rights when they were brought to the Naval Base. Through the examination of the Supreme Court cases that dealt with non-citizen prisoners located outside of the United States borders and through the classification of the prisoners as unlawful enemy combatants, the question of the legal rights held by these prisoners will be answered. A better understanding of the events that transpired at Guantánamo Bay will allow the United States federal government and subsequent intelligence communities better insight into the rights that non-citizens possess.

<p>The construction of International Humanitarian Law and the norms regarding protection of prisoners of war have evolved as a reaction to the horrors of war. After September 11 and the following war on terrorism the notion of POWs has been widely debated. The USA holds prisoners at the navy base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba without granting them status as POWs; this thesis is placing the treatment of these detainees within a historical context. The norm concerning rights of POWs is today both internationalized and institutionalized, but that has not always been the case. This thesis illuminates how the norms have evolved during World War I, World War II and Vietnam War; finally the war against terrorism and the treatment of the prisoners at Guantánamo Bay is analyzed. The intention of the thesis is to use a historical overview of the evolution of IHL, and the rights of POWs in particular, to formulate a wider assumption about the implication of IHL in the war against terrorism and the future.</p><p>The thesis adopts a theory which combines constructivism and John Rawls´ theory of justice and uses constructivist ideas about the nature of the international system applied to Rawls´ notion of justice. The constructivist theory and ontology are the basis of the theoretical framework of this thesis and Rawls´ definition of justice as the base of social institutions are viewed from a constructivist perspective. IHL and the norms regarding protection of POWs are thus considered as social facts, constructed and upheld through social interaction between states.</p>

The construction of International Humanitarian Law and the norms regarding protection of prisoners of war have evolved as a reaction to the horrors of war. After September 11 and the following war on terrorism the notion of POWs has been widely debated. The USA holds prisoners at the navy base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba without granting them status as POWs; this thesis is placing the treatment of these detainees within a historical context. The norm concerning rights of POWs is today both internationalized and institutionalized, but that has not always been the case. This thesis illuminates how the norms have evolved during World War I, World War II and Vietnam War; finally the war against terrorism and the treatment of the prisoners at Guantánamo Bay is analyzed. The intention of the thesis is to use a historical overview of the evolution of IHL, and the rights of POWs in particular, to formulate a wider assumption about the implication of IHL in the war against terrorism and the future. The thesis adopts a theory which combines constructivism and John Rawls´ theory of justice and uses constructivist ideas about the nature of the international system applied to Rawls´ notion of justice. The constructivist theory and ontology are the basis of the theoretical framework of this thesis and Rawls´ definition of justice as the base of social institutions are viewed from a constructivist perspective. IHL and the norms regarding protection of POWs are thus considered as social facts, constructed and upheld through social interaction between states.

The purpose of this research paper is to examine how international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL) are applied to the Guantánamo Bay detention center. This paper was completed through the research of international treaties, court cases, and secondary sources that thoroughly discussed issues pertaining to Guantánamo and international law. This paper first examines the differences between the two laws by looking at the particular roles each is meant to play in the subject of international law, as well as how the two have been applied thus far to the situation at Guantánamo. Second, the paper discusses the topic of whether or not IHL and IHRL should be mutually exclusive, or can be interpreted alongside each other. In addition, a discussion of the opposing viewpoints on this topic will be presented including the United States argument of lex specialis, and the opposing arguments of the international community. Chapter three will cover the topic of extraterritorial application and how it affects the international treaties and court cases that deal with issues pertinent to Guantánamo. The fourth chapter discusses the effects that Guantánamo has on the reputation of the United States internationally, and how it affects human rights around the world. Chapter five discusses possible recommendations in order to achieve the long-term goal of ending the Guantanamo Bay controversy, and protecting and promoting human rights everywhere.