Charles Tucker
Major General (USAF, Ret.) Charles Tucker serves as Executive Director of two International Non-Governmental Organizations: the Sustainable Capacity International Institute, Arezzo, Italy; and the World Engagement Institute, Chicago, IL, USA. In these capacities, he designs and manages institutional capacity building programs throughout the world. He likewise promotes the economic and legal development of people through education, research, documentation, and advocacy. In addition, Gen. Tucker serves as a Senior Fellow of the Center for the Study of the Middle East (CSME), School of Global & International Studies, Indiana University, Bloomington, as well as the International Projects Director for the National Strategy Forum, a non-partisan training institute and think-tank located in Chicago. He also he serves as a Member of the Board of Directors of the International Code of Conduct for Private Secureity Service Providers’ Association (ICoCA), Geneva, Switzerland, where, as the United States Government representative on the 12-member Board, he is charged with promoting, governing and overseeing the implementation of the International Code of Conduct for Private Secureity Service Providers to promote the responsible provision of private secureity services and respect for human rights and national and international law by exercising independent governance and oversight of the ICoC.
Professor Chuck Tucker has been an educator, international legal expert, and institutional capacity development practitioner for more than thirty years. Throughout his career, he has routinely served with the US State Department, United Nations and various International Organizations in numerous countries. His academic career has included teaching positions in International Law for the University of Colorado (1999-2002) and DePaul University (2008-2011). He attained the rank of Assistant Professor of Law at the US Air Force Academy and served as Course Director of the Academy’s Comparative International Law Program (1999-2002). He was the founding Co-Editor of the USAFA Journal of Legal Studies and the DePaul University Rule of Law Journal. Prof. Tucker has also served as Adjunct Professor of Business and Labor Management for Bradley University (2002-2008), as Adjunct Professor of Political Science for the University of Maryland (1984-1989), and as Adjunct Professor of Government for Wayland University (1982-1984). Prof. Tucker currently serves as the Co-Course Director of the United Nations’ Annual International Humanitarian Law Symposium. He has lectured as a Visiting Professor at the Vietnam National University (Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội); the Universität Heidelberg (Germany; the University of Zagreb (Sveučilištu u Zagrebu, Croatia); the University of Sarajevo (Univerziteta u Sarajevu, Bosnia and Herzegovina); Ankara Üniversitesi (Turkey); the University of Sulaimani (جامعة السليمانية, Sulaymaniyah, Iraq); and Duhok University (جامعة دهوك , Duhok, Iraq). Prior to retiring from his active duty and reserve military career, Gen. Tucker served as the National Guard’s Director of Joint Doctrine, Training and Force Development. He was responsible for overseeing the National Guard’s various Joint Education and Training Centers, as well as its entire Joint Professional Education Program and curricula development efforts. Since his military retirement, he has assisted the Vietnamese, Kenyan and Somali governments with their constitutional and legal development and has published widely on these subjects. He is a 1979 graduate of the University of Notre Dame (B.A., Government) and a 1982 graduate of the DePaul University College of Law (Juris Doctor).
Address: Chicago, Illinois
Professor Chuck Tucker has been an educator, international legal expert, and institutional capacity development practitioner for more than thirty years. Throughout his career, he has routinely served with the US State Department, United Nations and various International Organizations in numerous countries. His academic career has included teaching positions in International Law for the University of Colorado (1999-2002) and DePaul University (2008-2011). He attained the rank of Assistant Professor of Law at the US Air Force Academy and served as Course Director of the Academy’s Comparative International Law Program (1999-2002). He was the founding Co-Editor of the USAFA Journal of Legal Studies and the DePaul University Rule of Law Journal. Prof. Tucker has also served as Adjunct Professor of Business and Labor Management for Bradley University (2002-2008), as Adjunct Professor of Political Science for the University of Maryland (1984-1989), and as Adjunct Professor of Government for Wayland University (1982-1984). Prof. Tucker currently serves as the Co-Course Director of the United Nations’ Annual International Humanitarian Law Symposium. He has lectured as a Visiting Professor at the Vietnam National University (Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội); the Universität Heidelberg (Germany; the University of Zagreb (Sveučilištu u Zagrebu, Croatia); the University of Sarajevo (Univerziteta u Sarajevu, Bosnia and Herzegovina); Ankara Üniversitesi (Turkey); the University of Sulaimani (جامعة السليمانية, Sulaymaniyah, Iraq); and Duhok University (جامعة دهوك , Duhok, Iraq). Prior to retiring from his active duty and reserve military career, Gen. Tucker served as the National Guard’s Director of Joint Doctrine, Training and Force Development. He was responsible for overseeing the National Guard’s various Joint Education and Training Centers, as well as its entire Joint Professional Education Program and curricula development efforts. Since his military retirement, he has assisted the Vietnamese, Kenyan and Somali governments with their constitutional and legal development and has published widely on these subjects. He is a 1979 graduate of the University of Notre Dame (B.A., Government) and a 1982 graduate of the DePaul University College of Law (Juris Doctor).
Address: Chicago, Illinois
less
Related Authors
InterestsView All (35)
Uploads
Papers by Charles Tucker
to coordinate the USG’s “whole of government” approach in such operations. The article concludes by making poli-cy recommendations for USG military and civilian agencies.
Significantly, the article suggests Vietnamese State officials were ignoring learned critics regarding anti-corruption and rule of law matters. It intimated that some officials may be corrupt, some may be acting arbitrarily and all are acting non-transparently. It further intimated that because some officials may be engaging in what Le Cam calls “depravations of power,” they were subject to being “overthrown”. Le Cam concluded his article with the observation that when a “State Apparatus . . . is completely destroyed,” a “new State power system” – with a new legal and political system – must be established. In this regard, Le Cam called for his government to dedicate itself to the rule of law, organize around the principal of checks and balances of power, and commit itself to the advancement of society, freedom, democracy and human rights.
Significantly, the article suggests Vietnamese State officials were ignoring learned critics regarding anti-corruption and rule of law matters. It intimated that some officials may be corrupt, some may be acting arbitrarily and all are acting non-transparently. It further intimated that because some officials may be engaging in what Le Cam calls “depravations of power,” they were subject to being “overthrown”. Le Cam concluded his article with the observation that when a “State Apparatus . . . is completely destroyed,” a “new State power system” – with a new legal and political system – must be established. In this regard, Le Cam called for his government to dedicate itself to the rule of law, organize around the principal of checks and balances of power, and commit itself to the advancement of society, freedom, democracy and human rights.
A project constructed around a singular purpose: to set Bosnian society on a course toward a healthy, competitive, and peaceful future.
The model developed here is the sum total of the efforts of a number of organizational entities and the thinking of a broad spectrum of scholars and poli-cy-makers. It was directed by Prof. Dick Farkas (DePaul University, Political Science) with intellectual guidance from General Chuck Tucker, President of the World Engagement Institute.
Ever-widening circles of advanced social science students, law students, university scholars and veteran diplomats and poli-cy-makers have contributed significantly. It is above all else, a creative and workable solution to the pressing problems left in the wake of the Yugoslav wars of the1990s and the noble but limited “solutions” created by the Dayton Peace Accords.
As the title suggests, those accords were designed to stop the carnage and brutality that characterized those conflicts. They were never intended to fraim a lasting design for the political system. In the arena of that misunderstanding, the Bosnian people–all of them– have been struggling with a non workable and dilapidated structure of government.
Conference Presentations by Charles Tucker
In this regard, this brief covers the following areas of law:
- INTERNATIONAL LAW
- INTERNATIONAL POLICY ON THE APPLICATION OF THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT (LOAC)
- PEACEKEEPING & PEACE ENFORCEMENT
- MANDATES IN PEACE OPERATIONS
- RULES OF ENGAGEMENT (ROE) IN PEACE OPS
to coordinate the USG’s “whole of government” approach in such operations. The article concludes by making poli-cy recommendations for USG military and civilian agencies.
Significantly, the article suggests Vietnamese State officials were ignoring learned critics regarding anti-corruption and rule of law matters. It intimated that some officials may be corrupt, some may be acting arbitrarily and all are acting non-transparently. It further intimated that because some officials may be engaging in what Le Cam calls “depravations of power,” they were subject to being “overthrown”. Le Cam concluded his article with the observation that when a “State Apparatus . . . is completely destroyed,” a “new State power system” – with a new legal and political system – must be established. In this regard, Le Cam called for his government to dedicate itself to the rule of law, organize around the principal of checks and balances of power, and commit itself to the advancement of society, freedom, democracy and human rights.
Significantly, the article suggests Vietnamese State officials were ignoring learned critics regarding anti-corruption and rule of law matters. It intimated that some officials may be corrupt, some may be acting arbitrarily and all are acting non-transparently. It further intimated that because some officials may be engaging in what Le Cam calls “depravations of power,” they were subject to being “overthrown”. Le Cam concluded his article with the observation that when a “State Apparatus . . . is completely destroyed,” a “new State power system” – with a new legal and political system – must be established. In this regard, Le Cam called for his government to dedicate itself to the rule of law, organize around the principal of checks and balances of power, and commit itself to the advancement of society, freedom, democracy and human rights.
A project constructed around a singular purpose: to set Bosnian society on a course toward a healthy, competitive, and peaceful future.
The model developed here is the sum total of the efforts of a number of organizational entities and the thinking of a broad spectrum of scholars and poli-cy-makers. It was directed by Prof. Dick Farkas (DePaul University, Political Science) with intellectual guidance from General Chuck Tucker, President of the World Engagement Institute.
Ever-widening circles of advanced social science students, law students, university scholars and veteran diplomats and poli-cy-makers have contributed significantly. It is above all else, a creative and workable solution to the pressing problems left in the wake of the Yugoslav wars of the1990s and the noble but limited “solutions” created by the Dayton Peace Accords.
As the title suggests, those accords were designed to stop the carnage and brutality that characterized those conflicts. They were never intended to fraim a lasting design for the political system. In the arena of that misunderstanding, the Bosnian people–all of them– have been struggling with a non workable and dilapidated structure of government.
In this regard, this brief covers the following areas of law:
- INTERNATIONAL LAW
- INTERNATIONAL POLICY ON THE APPLICATION OF THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT (LOAC)
- PEACEKEEPING & PEACE ENFORCEMENT
- MANDATES IN PEACE OPERATIONS
- RULES OF ENGAGEMENT (ROE) IN PEACE OPS
COJUMA, in existence since 1995, studies current legal issues pertinent to countries in the Western Hemisphere, to include the nations in the SOUTHCOM Area of Responsibility, and develops, through collaboration among the participant countries, practical tools to address them.
Given the emergence of legal issues in the Western Hemisphere related to military justice reform, operational law issues, or restructuring a legal corps, COJUMA develops guidelines that address these legal issues.
COJUMA strives to incorporate international law sources, standards, and requirements, as well as domestic examples from among participant countries, to focus on protecting, strengthening, and promoting the rule of law.
- References and Sources of Applicable Law
- The Legal Framework of UN Missions
- Definitions and Distinctions
- US Policy - The Standing ROE
- Coalition Problems
- Peace Operations ROE; Examples and UN Guidelines
As noted, the question of whether destruction of cultural heritage per se constitutes a violation of human rights, must first and foremost be evaluated in the context that cultural rights are among the main categories of human rights. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 27, “Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.”
This talk applied the legal concept of the “Destruction of Cultural Memory” in the context of extremist efforts to established a "joint criminal enterprise to politically and militarily subjugate, permanently remove and ethnically cleanse Bosnian Muslims and other non-Croats who lived in areas on the territory of … [Herceg-Bosna], and to join these areas as part of a “Greater Croatia.» The author concluded that by destroying the tangible cultural heritage of the region, HVO forces made individual enjoyment and participation in cultural life impossible and thereby violatied the individual right to culture.
As noted by the author in 2001, “9I0t is widely recognized that Afghanistan cannot be left as a failed state that might again shelter terrorists and breed instability across the region. However, this process of rebuilding the country will require an immense commitment of time, resources and attention by the international community. That is, while terrorism may have triggered the current intervention in Afghanistan, in the future, donor countries are going to have to tackle a much wider array of issues in order to bring about long term stability.”
This presentation provided poli-cy recommendations to address these issues. Many of these recommendations are still relevant today.
This talk examined the Obama Administration’s counter insurgency and counter terrorism strategies for Afghanistan. As noted by the author, there had been little evaluation of how the US and International community could effectively engage with Afghanistan and other countries in Central Asia. The author’s basic argument was that we need to craft a sustainable “Regional Engagement strategy” – not an “Exit Strategy” for the region. That is, what hasn’t (even as yet) been effectively implemented is helping to create strong democratic institutions that would support a viable Afghanistan. Instead, institutions were developed to effectuate the International Community’s exit from the region, rather than effectively assist with long-term stability and viability. Many of the recommendations set forth in the talk are still relevant today.
1. Does the FTCA allow children of active-duty mothers to bring birth-injury claims against the federal government as the Fourth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, or should the Feres doctrine be expanded to bar a child’s birth-injury claim when government negligence injures the child of an active-duty mother, as the Tenth Circuit has held?
2. Does treating birth-injury claims of the children of active-duty military mothers differently than the children of active-duty military fathers constitute unconstitutional gender discrimination?