Professor Ku’s review of When International Law Works is most insightful. I thank him for it. His “short bloggish description” of its thesis is as clear a summary of my book as I’ve been able to muster in two sentences. I confess I will probably appropriate it when I present the book at Temple Law School later this week. Professor...
In a previous post, I noted that Peter Berkowitz defended the legality of a U.S. or Israeli attack on Iran's non-existent nuclear weapons program by invoking U.S. practice -- and only U.S. practice. He now has offered another defense of such an attack in response to an editorial by Bruce Ackerman in the L.A Times. Unfortunately, Berkowitz's second article is...
As I intimated in my introduction to this Roundtable, I was deeply impressed by When International Law Works (WILW). Professor Cheng’s accomplishment is to make legal theory -- even international legal theory – seem accessible, relevant and important. This may not sound like much, but I challenge you to work your way through Austin, Hart or McDougal/Lasswell and Koskenniemi and...
Americans are furious. Officials are out of touch with the rest of us. If we thought about it, we should be angry that officials do not take international law more seriously. That is just another way that the people we send to Washington do not understand what we really need. American workers whose retirement funds hold GM stock should want to...
Opinio Juris is very pleased to host a Roundtable this week on Professor Tai-Heng Cheng’s recent book, When International Law Works: Realistic Idealism After 9/11 and the Global Recession (Oxford University Press). The Roundtable will proceed throughout the week and feature a fascinating and diverse group of discussants. Professor Cheng and I will kick off the discussion today, followed later...
[John Knox is Professor of Law at Wake Forest Law School] The Supreme Court’s decision to send Kiobel back for reargument on whether the Alien Tort Statute allows courts to recognize a cause of action for violations of the law of nations in foreign territory will focus attention on the presumption against extraterritoriality, as Anthony Colangelo pointed out in his recent...
[Claude Bruderlein is the director of the Harvard Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research] The deteriorating security situation in Syria has had dramatic consequences on the civilian population. While the international community debates different ways to respond to the violence against civilians and the rising humanitarian needs, a growing tension has emerged around the means and methods to provide...
If you have not been able to keep up with the stream of posts on Opinio Juris this week, we are pleased to offer you a weekend roundup. Three topics and a symposium fought for your attention. First, the US Supreme Court hearings in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum continued to provide food for thought, particularly after the Court’s order on...
There is much to admire in Alex Waal's criticism of the international community's kneejerk response to mass humanitarian atrocities. Once an abstract obligation, stopping genocide has become a political project. Building on the humanitarian interventionism of the 1990s, a vast anti-genocide movement, largely U.S.-based, is stirring students and movie stars alike. Its figureheads are Gareth Evans, a former Australian foreign minister and...
Fascinating article on how the U.S. government can, if it chooses, force almost any website with the ".com" suffix to shut down. ...
Panel 3 of the NYU JILP Vol. 44:2 Online Symposium
Thomas Spijkerboer is professor of migration law at VU University Amsterdam. His publications in English include Gender and Refugee Status (Ashgate, 2000), Women and Immigration Law (Routledge, 2007, edited volume with Sarah van Walsum), and Fleeing Homophobia (VU University Amsterdam/COC Nederland, 2011, with Sabine Jansen). A couple of weeks ago, a friend of mine who works for the Dutch asylum authorities told me an example of why he feels uneasy about the Dutch asylum policy towards gay Iraqi asylum seekers. The short version, which is sufficient for our purposes, is that a man was badly beaten because he was (correctly) thought to be gay because he wore very tight jeans. Even from this short summary, it is clear that this man was subjected to persecution on account of his being gay. Such past persecution as a result of membership of a particular social group gives rise to a presumption of a well-founded fear of being persecuted in the future; state practice to this effect has been codified in Article 4(4) of EU Directive 2004/83. The Hathaway/Pobjoy article gives ample arguments to deny this claim, allowing this man to return to a situation in which he has a well-founded fear of being persecuted on account of being gay. The reason why they argue that this claim has to be denied is because “[w]here risk accrues only by virtue of an applicant having engaged in an activity no more than peripherally associated with sexual identity – including where risk arises from an imputation of sexual identity derived solely from having engaged in such activity – it cannot be reasonably said to be a risk that arises “ ‘for reasons of’ sexual orientation.” Without any doubt, dressing in tight jeans is in the same category as the examples taken from Lord Rodgers’ statement which apparently so turns on Hathaway and Pobjoy: attending Kylie concerts, drinking exotically colored drinks, and doing boy talk. The Hathaway/Pobjoy argument leads to denial of a refugee claim, which clearly should not be denied. Something is fundamentally wrong with their argument. I posit that their article has two problems. The first is an incorrect application of refugee law doctrine – surprising, because Hathaway’s 1991 book is such an impressive doctrinal analysis. The second consists of the fantasy (current among legal scholars, therefore less surprising) that law and politics can be meaningfully separated.Panel 3 of the NYU JILP Vol. 44:2 Online Symposium
Jenni Millbank is Professor of Law at University of Technology Sydney. She has pioneered work addressing the claims of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender asylum seekers and interrogating how their claims are understood (and misunderstood) in the refugee adjudication process. With Catherine Dauvergne, Professor Millbank has undertaken a series of research projects involving long term comparative analysis of sexuality and gender claims from Australia, the UK, Canada, New Zealand and the USA, which they are currently extending to include several European jurisdictions."[T]he Convention offers protection to gay and lesbian people—and, I would add, bisexuals and everyone else on a broad spectrum of sexual behaviour—because they are entitled to have the same freedom from fear of persecution as their straight counterparts. No-one would proceed on the basis that a straight man or woman could find it reasonably tolerable to conceal his or her sexual identity indefinitely to avoid suffering persecution. Nor would anyone proceed on the basis that a man or woman could find it reasonably tolerable to conceal his or her race indefinitely to avoid suffering persecution. Such an assumption about gay men and lesbian women is equally unacceptable."
