Procedural Model

  • Emily Hartz


In the work Discourses on Livy, Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527) warned against extra legal models of emergency governance as potentially devastating for a government (Hartz 2010, p. 81). He argued instead that a republic should always make sure to develop a system of checks and balances that it could resort to in emergencies:


Procedural Model Steel Mill Military Tribunal Military Commission Emergency Power 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bryant AC, Tobias C (2003) Quirin revisited. Wis Law Rev 2003(1):309–364Google Scholar
  2. Ferejohn J, Pasquino P (2004) Law of exception: a typology of emergency powers. Int J Const Law 2(3):210–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fisher L (2004) Presidential war power, 2nd Aufl. University Press of Kansas, LawrenceGoogle Scholar
  4. Gross O, Ní Aoláin F (2006) Law in times of crisis: emergency powers in theory and practice. Cambridge studies in international and comparative law (Cambridge, England: 1996). Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hartz E (2010) From Milligan to Boumediene: three models of emergency jurisprudence in the American Supreme Court. Balt J Law Polit 3(2):69–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Issacharoff S, Pildes RH (2004) Emergency contexts without emergency powers: the United States constitutional approach to rights during wartime. Int J Const Law 2(3):296–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Katyal NK, Tribe LH (2002) Waging war, deciding guilt: trying the military tribunals. Yale Law J 111(6):1259–1310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Machiavelli, N. (1984). Discourses. London, Penguin BooksGoogle Scholar
  9. Machiavelli, N. (2005). The Prince. Cambridge, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  10. Paulsen MS (2002) Youngstown goes to war. Const Comment 19(1):215Google Scholar
  11. Pildes RH, Issacharoff S (2004) Between civil libertarianism and executive unilateralism: an institutional process approach to rights during wartime. Theor Inquiries Law 5(1):1–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Pushaw RJ (2007) The “Enemy Combatant” cases in historical context: the inevitability of pragmatic judicial review. Notre Dame Law Rev 82(3):1005–1084Google Scholar
  13. Rossiter C, Longaker RP (1976) The Supreme Court and the Commander in Chief, Expanded Aufl. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  14. Schlesinger AM (2004) The imperial presidency, 1st Mariner Books Aufl. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar

List of Cases

  1. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006)Google Scholar
  2. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004)Google Scholar
  3. Milligan, Ex parte, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)Google Scholar
  4. Korematsu v. U.S., 323 U.S. 214 (1944)Google Scholar
  5. Prize Cases, The Amy Warwick, 67 U.S. 635 (1862)Google Scholar
  6. Quirin, Ex parte, 317 U.S. 1 (1942)Google Scholar
  7. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark

Personalised recommendations