Legality of US Airstrike in Syria, & More from CRS
Public debate over the legal authority for the April 6 U.S. missile strike on a Syrian airbase is reviewed in a new brief from the Congressional Research Service, which stops short of proposing a conclusion of its own.
“It remains to be seen whether the Trump Administration will release a statement explaining its legal basis for the missile strike under international law, but even if such a statement is forthcoming, it seems unlikely that it would put an end to this debate,” the CRS brief said. See U.S. Strike on Syrian Airbase: Legal under International Law?, CRS Legal Sidebar, April 17, 2017.
Other new reports from the Congressional Research Service include the following.
The Marshall Plan: 70th Anniversary, CRS Insight, April 18, 2017
U.S.-UK Free Trade Agreement: Prospects and Issues for Congress, April 14, 2017
France’s 2017 Presidential Election: In Brief, April 13, 2017
Border-Adjusted Consumption Taxes and Exchange Rate Movements: Theory and Evidence, April 18, 2017
The Revenue Baseline for Tax Reform, CRS Insight, April 14, 2017
Congressional News Media and the House and Senate Press Galleries, April 13, 2017
NASS and U.S. Crop Production Forecasts: Methods and Issues, April 13, 2017
Dressed to the Nines: What’s Next for the Nine-Justice Supreme Court, CRS Legal Sidebar, April 10, 2017
Westinghouse Bankruptcy Filing Could Put New U.S. Nuclear Projects at Risk, CRS Insight, April 19, 2017
As humans expand our geographic reach, encroach on untouched natural territories, and interact more with animal populations, we will encounter novel zoonotic diseases that threaten the human body. The sooner we act to address these risks, the better.
This report serves as a landscape assessment and toolbox from which local governments can negotiate an informed position when it comes to the levers available to them and includes a first-of-its kind analysis of eight executed community benefits agreements.
When a hurricane hits, it’s all hands on deck – that goes for federal data, too. Pulling back from our investments in timely, accurate, and accessible public data will only make us less prepared and put us all at greater risk.
This is bigger than a singular elimination of race and ethnicity questions. It could accelerate the second wave of widespread reductions to demographic data, leaving public health officials with even less information to deliver better health outcomes for all Americans.