Foreign Relations

The United States is, by many accounts, facing a renewed risk of major power conflict. This Article considers what the reemergence of this risk may mean for the executive branch’s operational understanding of constitutional war powers, specifically as they relate to the use of military force. This Article ultimately argues that the political branches must acknowledge and begin dialogue on how to approach the new strategic challenges the United States is facing. Otherwise, they risk compounding the political crisis of a major power conflict with a constitutional crisis over how the President may respond.

Past efforts to “reimagine” national security in legal scholarship have largely avoided systematic engagement with the foundational assumptions and presumptions of the field. Challenging and critiquing those assumptions is, however, necessary to producing scholarly work that reimagines, rather than reproduces, status quo approaches to U.S. national security. This Article presents an agenda for reimagining national security through legal scholarship, which is premised on the view that challenging the national security status quo should be part of those efforts. In doing so, this agenda explores seven premises central to how U.S. national security is currently conceived of, practiced, and implemented. Moving beyond the law, the agenda presented in this Article examines the structural power dynamics and political economy of national security, demonstrating why these issues are important to reimagining and transforming how we approach the discipline of national security as legal academics and advocates.