This week on Opinio Juris, Peter wrote about the unlikely advocates of international law in amicus briefs submitted in the gay marriage cases before the Supreme Court this week.

Julian was disappointed that despite all the reporting on the Amanda Knox retrial, nobody in the media had bothered to read the US-Italy extradition treaty. Kevin also took aim at the media’s lack of knowledge of international law. He argued that recent reporting on the Tallinn Manual on International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare grossly overestimates the likelihood that a hacker can legally be killed.

Further on cybersecurity, Roger argued that new restrictions on US federal agencies’ purchase of IT equipment produced in China by companies affiliated to the Chinese government are compatible with the US’ WTO obligations, because of the self-judging nature of the national security exceptions in the GATT and the GPA.

We also hosted a book symposium on Economic Foundations of International Law by Eric Posner and Alan Sykes. In his comment, Andrew Guzman focused on why states should accept more delegation to international institutions. Emilie Hafner-Burton and David Victor discussed how the book helps to identify new areas of international law open to empirical research. Rachel Brewster asked whether a liability rule is always the best option to operate remedies under international law, and Steve Charnovitz disagreed with some of the book’s analysis of the WTO. The authors response to the comments can be found here.

In other posts, Julian updated us on the appointment of a second arbitrator in the Philippines-China arbitration under UNCLOS, and James Hathaway’s  guest post announced the Summary Conclusions of the Roundtable on the Future of Refugee Convention Supervision, proposing the establishment of a Special Committee of Experts to oversee compliance with states’ obligations under the Refugee Convention.

If you’re keen to read more over what for many of you will be the long Easter weekend, check out Deborah’s post about her Foreign Policy article, co-authored with Phil Carter, Obama’s first Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Policy, on the use of criminal courts in counter-terrorism efforts. Ken also recommended the series on contemporary issues of IHL over at the ICRC’s blog Intercross. And, as usual, we had our weekday news wraps, which celebrated its first birthday this week.

Finally, we also listed upcoming events and announcements, and Anupam Chander provided a guest post on the newly established ASIL Interest Group on International Law and Technology that will meet after next week’s ASIL Annual Meeting.

Many thanks to our guest contributors and enjoy your (long) weekend!

This week we’re hosting a symposium on Economic Foundations of International Law, the new book by Eric Posner and Alan Sykes. Here is the abstract:

The ever-increasing exchange of goods and ideas among nations, as well as cross-border pollution, global warming, and international crime, pose urgent questions for international law. Here, two respected scholars provide an intellectual framework for assessing these pressing legal problems from a rational choice perspective.

The approach assumes that states are rational, forward-looking agents which use international law to address the actions of other states that may have consequences for their own citizens, and to obtain the benefits of international cooperation. It further assumes that in the absence of a central enforcement agency—that is, a world government—international law must be self-enforcing. States must believe that if they violate international agreements, other states will retaliate.

Consequently, Eric A. Posner and Alan O. Sykes devote considerable attention to the challenges of enforcing international law, which begin with the difficulties of determining what it is. In the absence of an international constitution, the sources for international law are vague. Lawyers must rely on statements contained in all manner of official documents and on simple observation of states’ behavior. This looseness leads international institutions such as the United Nations to deliver conflicting interpretations of the law’s most basic principles. The authors describe the conditions under which international law succeeds or fails, across a wide range of issues, including war crimes, human rights, international criminal law, principles of state responsibility, law of the sea, international trade regulation, and international investment law.

Andrew Guzman (Berkeley), Rachel Brewster (Duke), Steve Charnovitz (GW Law), Emilie Hafner-Burton (UC San Diego) and David Victor (UC San Diego) have kindly agreed to comment. As always, we welcome reader comments too.

Upcoming Events

• On April 8-9, 2013, The Institute for International Law and Justice, New York University School of Law, in partnership with the Schumpeter Research Group at the University of Giessen, is organizing a conference on Innovation in Governance of Development Finance: Causes, Consequences and the Role of Law.  Registration is now open here.
• Registration is now open for the Twenty-first Annual Conference of the Australian and New Zealand Society of International Law (ANZSIL) to be hosted by the Centre for International and Public Law, ANU College of Law, the Australian National University from July 4-6, 2013 at University House in Canberra, Australia.  This year’s theme is Accountability and International Law, and Professor Harold Hongju Koh will be the Keynote Speaker.
• If you’re getting ready to attend the American Society of International Law’s Annual Conference on April 3-6, 2013, check out this post on Preparing for ASIL 2013 by our friends at OUP.

Calls for Papers

• The European Society of International Law (ESIL) Interest Group on Business and Human Rights is calling for papers for its panel on May 23, 2013 at the 5^thESIL Research Forum in Amsterdam. A 300 words abstract proposal (Word or pdf format) should be submitted via email to Dr. Olga Martin-Ortega by April 15, 2013. Candidates are requested to include their name and affiliation in the email but not in the abstract itself.
• Abstract submissions are sought for a conference on Interpretation and International Law, to be held at the University of Cambridge on August 27, 2013, with the support of the Faculty of Law and the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law. Keynote presentations include: Judge Sir David Baragwanath (President, Special Tribunal for Lebanon); Professor Andrea Bianchi (The Graduate Institute, Geneva) and Ingo Venzke (University of Amsterdam). Further details can be found in the call for papers. Abstract submissions must be between 300-500 words in length and should be accompanied by a short resume. Applications should be e-mailed by 1 May 2013, and successful applicants will be notified by late May 2013.

Announcements

• The Federalist Society has released the podcast of its Teleforum on Cybersecurity and the Chinese Hacker Problem.  It was originally recorded on March 12 and featured Richard Bejtich of Mandiant and Paul Rosenzweig of Red Branch Consulting.

Housekeeping

If you have tried to comment on the blog in the past few days, you may have noticed a small change. Before your comment goes online, you are now asked to solve a very simple maths problem. You can avoid having to do this for each comment by becoming a registered user of Opinio Juris. We hope this small additional step doesn’t discourage you from participating in the discussions, but unfortunately we felt compelled to implement it to stop the growing number of spam comments we receive every day.

Last week’s post can be found here. If you would like to post an announcement on Opinio Juris, please contact us.

This week on Opinio Juris, CIA drone strikes remained in the spotlight. Continuing on last week’s post, Kevin tried to get to the bottom of the CIA’s involvement in drone strikes and whether it is sufficient to trigger criminal liability, which sparked a long discussion in the comments with John C. Dehn. Deborah welcomed news reports about a possible transfer of the CIA’s programme to the Defense Department, whose targeting authority she argued is better constrained. She added, though, that the organizational shift would not solve all problems unless transparency improves to ensure political accountability.

We also kept you up-to-date with recent developments in international law. Kristen reported on the decision of the parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species to expand the scope of the Convention, and Kevin wrote about the latest episode in the battle between Libya and the ICC over al-Senussi. And of course, there were our daily weekday news wraps.

In other posts, Duncan wondered whether high school cyberwar teams include legal advisors; Ken upheld his yearly tradition of posting Joan of Arc’s Declaration of War in 1429; and Roger posted the Google rankings of the most influential international law journals.

If you need inspiration on topics for articles to submit to these journals, check out our events and announcements for a collection of conferences and calls for papers.

Have a nice weekend!

Our main event this week was a book symposium on Curtis Bradley’s new book “International Law in the US Legal System“. On the first day, the symposium focused on treaties with comments by David Moore and Jean Galbraith.  Attention turned to international delegations on day two. Julian welcomed the book’s attention to questions of constitutional structure, but disagreed that accession to the International Criminal Court would not create delegation problems. Kristina Daugirdas asked whether the presumption of non-self-execution as a solution to questions of delegation could make it harder for the US to comply with its international obligations. On day three, Bill Dodge and Mark Weisburd discussed the position of customary international law in the US legal system. Finally, Mike Ramsey and Ingrid Wuerth discussed war powers and international law, and Curtis Bradley responded to all comments.

All commentators wholeheartedly recommended the book, so maybe it can follow in the footsteps of Duncan’s book “The Oxford Guide to Treaties“, about which we had a symposium late last year, and win an ASIL Certificate of Merit.

Deborah asked whether the US needs a new authorization to use force against the new jihadist groups in North Africa and the Middle East that are only distantly related to the “original” Al Qaeda, or whether other options that are already legally available would be sufficient.

Our bloggers have been active lately: Kristen Boon posted the abstract to her essay on lex specialis and the responsibility of international organizations, while Roger’s teaching took him to the Philippines where he witnessed first hand how microfinance had helped transform a mountain village.

Speaking of affecting change,  if this post on Lawfare, pointed out by Ken, is correct, Kevin may have achieved every academic’s dream of our work (a blog post even!) affecting government policy. In a follow-up post, Kevin argued why a CIA drone operator cannot invoke the public authority defense. In other posts, Kevin continued the debate on the power to capture or kill  with his response to Ryan Goodman’s rebuttal over at Lawfare. Kevin also posted about Philippe Sands’ decision to quit the LibDems over their support to the UK’s new justice and security bill, counted the legal errors in an article in the Jerusalem Post reporting about the request by an Israeli law firm to the ICC Prosecutor to open an investigation against the Palestinian President Abbas and nine Hamas members, and updated us on Libya’s latest procedural steps in slowing down the admissibility challenge.

As every week, we listed events and announcements  and provided you with daily weekday news wraps.

Many thanks to our guest contributors and have a nice weekend!

This week, we are hosting a symposium on Curtis Bradley’s new book “International Law in the US Legal System“, published last month by Oxford University Press. OUP has kindly agreed to offer Opinio Juris readers a 20% discount, which you can access by clicking on the ad at the right.

According to the abstract, the book

explores the dynamic intersection between international law and the domestic legal system within the United States and covers both settled principles as well as unresolved issues and areas of controversy. Curtis Bradley considers all of the principal forms of international law: treaties, decisions and orders of international institutions, customary international law, and jus cogens norms. He also explores a number of specific topics that are implicated by the intersection of U.S. law and international law, such as foreign sovereign immunity, international human rights litigation, extradition, war powers, and extraterritoriality. As he explains, international law plays an important and sometimes under-appreciated role in the U.S. legal system, but its domestic application is mediated by a variety of structural considerations, including federalism and the separation of powers. This book highlights recent decisions and events relating to the topic (including decisions and events arising out of the war on terrorism), while also taking into account relevant historical materials, including materials relating to the U.S. constitutional founding. The book is designed to be accessible to a wide range of lawyers, judges, law students, and policymakers, both inside and outside the United States.

Each day, two commentators will focus on a particular topic. David Moore (BYU) and Jean Galbraith (Rutgers) will kick off later today with a discussion on Treaties, Self-Execution, and Federalism. Tomorrow, Julian Ku (Hofstra, and of course OJ) and Kristina Daugirdas (Michigan) discuss Delegating Authority to International Institutions. On Wednesday, Mark Weisburd (UNC) and William Dodge (UC Hastings) address the Domestic Status of Customary International Law. On Friday, Michael Ramsey (San Diego) and Ingrid Wuerth (Vanderbilt) wrap up the symposium with a discussion on International Law and War Powers.

We hope that these comments will only be the start of the discussion and that our readers will join in in the comments.

Calls for Papers

• The American Branch of the International Law Association and the International Law Students Association (ILSA) have called for submissions for the International Law Weekend 2013 to be held in New York City on October 24-26. The overall theme is Internationalization of Law and Legal Practice, and its aim is to examine how and why an appreciation and knowledge of international law is an increasingly relevant and important professional tool for virtually every lawyer. Proposal should be submitted here on or before March 15, 2013.

Events

• Registration is now open for the 2013 conference of the Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law. On 18 and 19 May 2013, academics, practitioners and students from all over the world will gather in Cambridge for a weekend of discussion and debate under the theme “Legal Tradition in a Diverse World”. Highlights include a keynote address by Judge Yusuf (ICJ); a guest lecture by Prof. Patrick Glenn (McGill); and a keynote debate between Prof. Alain Pellet (Paris X) and Prof. James Crawford (Cambridge), moderated by Prof. Catherine Redgwell (UCL).
• The inaugural London International Boundary Conference will take place on 18 and 19 April 2013 at the Royal Geographical Society, London.  It will provide a unique and multidisciplinary insight into the complex world of international boundary and sovereignty disputes.  Speakers at the Conference are among the world’s leading experts and practitioners in the effective resolution of territorial disputes.  They will examine recent developments in disputed “hotspots” around the world, and discuss new and emerging ideas for the resolution and management of territorial disputes, from legal, geopolitical, technical, commercial and other viewpoints.  The Conference will examine how these varied, emerging perspectives might inform a more integrated approach to international boundary and territorial disputes.  The Conference, which will be a not-for-profit event, will be hosted by Department of Geography, King’s College London, Volterra Fietta and the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office. The Conference will also run a half-day technical workshop at King’s College London on the afternoon of 17 April 2013, offering a practical introduction to maritime limits and boundaries.

Announcements

• The Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law is pleased to announce the publication of its Special Conference Issue (vol 1(3)), which is a testament to the high quality and engaging level of debate that took place at the CJICL’s inaugural conference on the theme “Agents of Change: The Individual as a Participant in the Legal Process” on 19-20 May 2012.
• Beginning this year, the GlobalTrust research project at Tel Aviv University Faculty of Law will study the extent to which states that exercise regulatory functions should take into account the interests and preferences of foreign individuals and communities located outside their boundaries. The project is informed by the observation that by their regulatory measures, states routinely affect the life-opportunities of foreigners without the latter being able to participate meaningfully in shaping those measures. Such decision-making fails to respect the participatory rights of those foreigners and often yields outcomes that are not welfare maximizing and non-egalitarian. Participants in this project will explore the possible moral and legal grounds for requiring states to take other-regarding considerations into account and the institutional mechanisms that could legitimize the external review of states’ compliance with such obligations. Funded by a European Research Council Advanced Grant, the project offers three types of fellowships: post-doctoral, doctoral and short-term visiting fellowships. Further information is available here.
• The University of Leeds has created a 5 year Research Fellowship in Security and Justice. Further information is available here.

Last week’s post can be found here. If you would like to post an announcement on Opinio Juris, please contact us.

This week on Opinio Juris, Kevin argued why the OPCD’s small victory over the return of documents seized by Libya may be important in the longer run because of its consequences for Libya’s admissibility challenge. He also quoted from Libya’s latest submission on the admissibility challenge to argue why it should lose the challenge. Shifting his focus to the US, Kevin asked three questions about AG Holder’s response to Rand Paul.

Tactics were the key word for Julian this week. He assessed two proposals for legal tactics that the US could use to win the cyberwar with other countries, and discussed Argentina’s tactics in the NML v. Argentina sovereign bond litigation.

Kristen Boon pointed out topics of interest at the Human Rights Council’s 22nd session, while Ken Anderson flagged the ongoing debate over at Lawfare and at Jens Ohlin’s Lieber Code about Ryan Goodman’s EJIL article on the power to kill or capture enemy combatants, as well as Jens’ response essay on SSRN.

We also had a wide range of guest posts this week. In a post that unsurprisingly attracted a lot of comments, Sigall Horovitz described how Israel can legally avoid, at least for seven years, an ICC investigation into the West Bank Settlements.

William Dodge updated us on Samatar’s certiorari petition to the US Supreme Court with a post summarizing the who, what and exceptions to state, status-based and conduct-based immunity.

We hosted a symposium on the latest issue of the Harvard International Law Journal. The first article, by Ginsburg, Elkins and Simmons, dealt with an issue that also got some attention on the blog last week: the impact of international human rights treaties on domestic constitutions. Christopher N.J. Roberts’ comments wondered whether the UDHR can be considered a template for domestic changes and what the impact of domestic legal culture is on the understanding of similar rights. Tom Ginsburg responded here.

The second article of the symposium was Natalie Lockwood’s article on International Vote Buying, for which William Burke-White provided the response. He questioned whether a legal prohibition on vote buying would be effective, but applauded the article for its re-examination of the role of economic power in the international community. Natalie’s response addressed whether vote buying and diplomacy can be separated as well as the difference between economic coercion and vote buying.

The third article discussed was Ashley Deeks’ one on Consent to the Use of Force and International Law Supremacy. Comments were provided by Opinio Juris’ own Duncan Hollis. He responded in two posts: one on issues of international law supremacy and another on whether international law should be able to invalidate consent if it manifestly violates the domestic law of the consenting state.

The final article was Moira Paz’ The Failed Promise of Language Rights: A Critique of the International Language Rights Regime, with Efrat Arbel as commentator. Moira’s response is here.

As always, we also provided a listing of events and announcements and weekday news wraps.

Many thanks to our guest contributors and have a nice weekend!

This week on Opinio Juris, it was too early for Talk Like a Pirate Day, but we certainly talked a lot about pirates. The reason of course was the Ninth Circuit’s decision to agree with Japanese whalers that the Sea Shepherd’s activities amount to piracy. Julian wasn’t fully confident that “private ends” are broader than financial enrichment, and Kevin strongly disagreed with Judge Kozinski’s argument that a “rich history” supports the conclusion that all acts not taking on behalf of a state are for private ends. In two later posts, Kevin responded to comments disagreeing with his claim that politically-motivated acts are traditionally excluded from the definition of piracy, and added his final word (for now). Kevin also described another problem with qualifying the Sea Shepherd’s actions as piracy: that some states -not including the US- do not consider the area where the events are taking place as part of the high seas, but rather as under Australia’s sovereignty.

Kevin also revisited Libya’s admissibility challenge in the Saif Gaddafi case. Considering Libya’s decision to let the trial in Zintan go ahead before the trial in Tripoli on the same charges as the ICC case, he argued that Libya is unable to obtain custody over Saif, and followed up with a post asking whether Libya is even willing to prosecute Saif.

Following a call by Chinese lawyers for the Chinese government to ratify the ICCPR, Julian asked whether international human rights treaties are a suitable vehicle for domestic legal reform. His post was censored from his China Weibo account, on which you can read more here. Roger addressed Julian’s question with a post on a recent empirical article concluding that there is no clear evidence that the leading international human rights instruments have influenced domestic constitution writing, although he argued that the evidence shows that the agreements may have had an impact during their drafting process.

Jennifer Trahan provided a guest post on recent speeches by former State Legal Advisor Harold Koh on the Obama administration’s policy towards the Rome Statute and the ICC.

Ken advertised his C-SPAN Book TV interview, which will air again today, and can also be watched online here. Also competing for your attention this Saturday is the Annual Conference of the Duke Law, Ethics, and National Security Center, which is live-streamed on the web. If more reading is what you’re after, Roger posted a link to his new article applying the Broken Windows Theory to international corruption, and Duncan recommended a series of draft papers on the ILC’s recent Guide to Reservations that are made available on EJIL:Talk! in preparation of a special EJIL issue on the topic. He also looked forward to the return of IntLawGrrls to the blogosphere this coming International Women’s Day. If a picture is worth a thousand words, this cartoon on Drone Heroes, posted by Kevin, says a lot more than that.

Finally, as always, we posted our weekly events and announcements and the weekday news wrap.

Have a nice weekend!

Events

On March 22, The Vermont Law School Chapter of the Federalist Society and The International Law Society at Vermont Law School are organizing Reaching Critical Mass: International and U.S. Law in the Wake of Modern Exigencies. The conference will explore the delicate balance between combating modern security threats, observing international law, and protecting human rights and civil liberties. Registration is here.

Calls for Papers

• The Asian Society of International Law has issued a call for papers for its  4th Biennial Conference, Asia and International Law in the Twenty-First Century: New Horizons, which will be hosted by the Indian Society of International Law in New Delhi, from November 14-16, 2013. More information can be found here. The deadline for abstract submission is April 15, 2013. A half-day student workshop on research in international law will be held the day before the conference. More information about this event can be found here
• The American Society of International Law’s International Law and Technology Interest Group (ILTechIG) is calling for papers addressing an issue at the intersection of international law and technology for its inaugural works-in-progress workshop, to be held from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Monday, April 8, 2013, at ASIL’s Tillar House Headquarters in Washington, D.C. Possible topics might include, for example, the regulation of data and privacy in trade regimes; the use of new technologies in warfare; technological challenges affecting environmental regulation; the regulation of cyberspace; the role of technology in advancing human rights; or the effect of technology on the practice of international law. Those interested in presenting should e-mail an abstract of not more than one page by March 1, 2013. Proposals should indicate the author’s name, phone number, e-mail address, and institutional affiliation and describe the anticipated state of the paper at the time of the conference (i.e., published or unpublished, complete or incomplete). To defray the cost of meals during the workshop, participants will be asked to pay a conference fee: $50 for ASIL members and $65 for non-members. A discounted rate of $55 is available for public sector non-member attendees.
• The Melbourne Journal of International Law invites submissions analysing contemporary jurisprudential questions raised by ‘the state’ and ‘sovereignty’ for its focus issue to be published in November 2013. Articles should be in the vicinity of 8 000 to 20 000 words in length and be an original and detailed contribution to international law scholarship. Commentaries explore recent developments in a specific field of international law and their practical applications, and should be between 5 000 and 8 000 words in length. The deadline for submissions is July 1, 2013. More information on the submission process can be found here

Last week’s announcements can be found here. If you would like to post an announcement on Opinio Juris, please contact us.

This week on Opinio Juris, Julian returned to his old favourite of the Whale Wars, and argued that the US courts can most likely exercise personal jurisdiction over Sea Shepherd, even in relation to its movements in the Southern Ocean.

Julian also covered a more recent favourite: the Philippines’ UNCLOS arbitration against China. He first reported on an article in the Chinese press quoting an unnamed expert advising the Chinese government not to take the Philippines’ claims too lightly. The advice, however, wasn’t followed, and Julian analysed what China’s decision not to walk down the arbitration path meant for UNCLOS arbitration involving major powers and for the discussion on UNCLOS ratification in the US. When the Philippines’ government decided to continue with the arbitration anyway, Julian didn’t consider this to be a futile exercise, or at least not any more futile than when China had decided to participate.

Kevin didn’t share Julian Assange’s optimism that a successful run in the upcoming Australian elections would lead the US to have to drop charges against him. As our regular readers will remember, Kevin argued last week that the ICC’s OTP committed a serious legal error when it argued that even an in absentia trial would mean that Libya’s admissibility challenge of the case against Saif Gaddafi could pass. It is no surprise then that Kevin was happy to see the OTP retract its submission this week. Kevin also recommended Jens Ohlin’s new article on “Targeting and the Concept of Intent“.

Kristen put the spotlight on International Peace Institute’s recent recommendation to give the African Union a bigger role in transitional justice issues in Africa. Kristen also posted the UN’s letter rejecting the Haiti Cholera claims, but thought the letter didn’t explain why the dispute was a public rather a private claim. Ken added to the discussion with an anecdote from his own experience while working in Bosnia.

Michael Lewis provided a guest post questioning how clear the dividing line between API and APII is, and ought to be.

If you’re planning to watch the Oscars this weekend, make sure to have a look at Deborah’s latest post on Zero Dark Thirty in which she discusses another forgotten element of the real story in the movie: the possibility of regret by those involved in the authorization of torture.

If your weekend plans include writing that long neglected paper, don’t make the mistakes listed by Roger when he stepped in the discussion on why academic writing is so bad. Check out our list of events and announcements too, maybe there is conference that is looking for just that paper!

Finally, as always, we provided you with our weekday news wraps.

Have a nice weekend!

This week on Opinio Juris, Julian noticed the apparent truce between the American right and the ICC, but didn’t go as far as calling it peace. Further on the ICC, Kevin pointed out a flagrant mistake at the Washington Times, and argued that the OTP was wrong in concluding that Libya is able to try Saif Gaddafi, because the Rome Statute does not consider a trial in absentia to meet that standard. Talking about criminal prosecutions, Peggy asked whether Pope Benedict XVI could be sued in the child sex abuse cases, when he retires later this month.

Julian discussed the latest interim order in the saga of the Lago Agrio case between Chevron and Ecuador, and wondered whether there is anything stopping Ecuador from dragging its feet in complying with the order. Roger weighed in in the comments.

In another post, Roger reflected on the role of intellectuals as Doubters-in-Chief of a society, and how often we take this for granted in a free society. Following the reference to the importance of citizenship to society in Obama’s State of the Union address, echoing earlier speeches, Peter argued that this is unfortunately more of an ideal not reflected by reality.

Peter also drew our attention to the issue of private rights of action under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction that is likely to reach the Supreme Court after the Second Circuit split with the Fourth Circuit.

To finish off the week, Deborah gave her view on the increasingly popular argument to create a drone court with jurisdiction to review targeted killing decisions.

If you want to read more this weekend, can we refer you to Kevin’s new his essay on Charles Taylor’s sentencing or an essay by Noam Lubell and Nathan Derejko on the Geography of NIAC, recommended by Kevin? Or, if you’d rather turn to writing, check out our events and announcements post. Kevin also posted a call for papers for the newly launched London Review of International Law. In the spirit of the Review’s intention to include “non-traditional forms of engagement with international legal themes”, Roger posted the poem Cruel Window No More.

You can also find our summary of international law news in our weekday news wraps.

Have a nice weekend!