This week on Opinio Juris, we hosted a Book Symposium on Interpretation in International Law. The Symposium was introduced by Daniel Peat and Matthew Windsor who offered the framework and context of the book in describing their introductory chapter (available here), explaining that the idea of interpretation in their work centers around the metaphor of a game, with each of the authors contributing their thoughts on elements of that game.
In the next post, our own Duncan examined the object of the game of interpretation in terms of its existential function. Then, on Tuesday, Michael Waibel analyzed the players of the game by discussing the nature of interpretive and epistemic communities in international law. Wednesday, Julian Arato confronted the paradox that, despite the unity and universality of the VCLT rules, there is a practice of affording some treaties differential treatment in the process of interpretation. Thursday, Fuad Zarbiyev characterized the interpretive method of textualism in strategic terms, revealing the historical contingencies that led to it being regarded as sacrosanct in international law. And finally on Friday, Philip Allott’s contribution (emblematic of the aims of the book) reflected on ways to promote critical and open-minded reflection on interpretive practices and processes in international law.
We had two guest posts, one from John Louth who discussed how many international law books are published each year, and one from Gabor Rona, who addressed the recent holding Maldonado v. Holder as it pertains to the US’ obligations under the Convention Against Torture.
Kevin offered his thoughts on the advantage for Palestine of a slow preliminary examination with respect to Palestinian statehood and the recent petition to bar Harold Koh from teaching human rights at NYU and Roger highlighted a debate amongst scholars on the investment arbitration chapter in the TPP and TTIP.
I posted the news and events and announcements.
Thanks very much to the contributing authors of Interpretation in International Law as well as our guest contributors and to you for following us on Opinio Juris. Have a great weekend!
This week on Opinio Juris, Kevin posted links to Justice in Conflict‘s symposium on Palestine and the ICC (1, 2), and commented on John Bellinger’s op-ed on the prosecution of ISIS through the ICC. Following the University of Southampton’s withdrawal of its permission for a conference on Israel, Kevin argued that Israel’s defenders use double standards when it comes to academic freedom. He also asked for reader recommendations for a good book on the practicalities of the re-establishment of diplomatic relations.
Duncan noted the usage of “will”, as opposed to “shall”, in the Iran nuclear deal, as an indication of the political, rather than the legal nature, of the commitments.
In a guest post, Sushma Nagaraj noted the Delhi High Court’s embrace of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Finally, Jessica wrapped up the international news headlines and I listed events and announcements.
Thank you for following us on Opinio Juris. Have a great weekend!
In the last fortnight at Opinio Juris, we saw Julian critique M. Cherif Bassiouni on his take on the Amanda Knox case in Italy, arguing that she would indeed be extraditable to the US.
Peter analyzed whether the Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz is in fact a natural-born citizen (spoiler alert: he is).
Kevin posted his thoughts on the two-year anniversary of the death of Chinua Achebe and a response to a Just Security post from Blank, Corn and Jensen on the assessment of proportionality and finally a response to Bartels (also posting on Just Security) on perfidy.
We received a guest post from Sonya Sceats on China as a shaper of international law, in conjunction with a series of meetings at Chatham House. And finally, An posted on events here, I did here, and I added two weekly news wraps (here and here).
Thanks to our guest contributors and to you for following us on Opinio Juris. Have a great weekend!
This week on Opinio Juris, we saw some analysis on the recent letter sent by US Republicans to Iran. Julian kicked off the discussion by pointing out the (unnecessary?) letter explaining the US Constitution and foreign relations law and Peter questioned whether the letter might be unconstitutional and even criminal. Julian offered further thoughts about why the Congress should be involved in the process, after Iran responded to the letter. Duncan spelled out the President’s options for dealing with Iran, with a focus on international commitments and domestic authority to commit the US internationally and Julian found a workaround toward a legally binding solution via a Security Council resolution on the matter.
Kevin added a few of his thoughts on the recent domestic conviction by the Ivory Coast of Simone Gbagbo and complementarity at the ICC, and offered a mea culpa on the Israeli attacks on Hezbollah in 2006. Finally, Tom Ruys offered a response to a recent discussion with his guest post on self-defense and non-state actors in the Cold War Era. We saw a lot of discussion on all the posts this week in the comments.
I wrapped up the news here and listed the events and announcements here.
Thanks for following us and have a great weekend!
This week on Opinio Juris, Kevin argued that the CIA and Mossad violated the Terrorist Bombing Convention in the 2008 bombing of Imad Mughniyah, Hezbollah’s international operations chief. Kevin also responded to Ryan Goodman’s Just Security post on Serdar Mohammed. A second part of that response is still to come, but Kevin already flagged the ICRC’s November 2014 Opinion Paper on detention in NIAC. Kevin also recommended Jens’ new book, and for the month of February OUP is offering a discount to our readers, so be quick to grab your copy by clicking on the ad on the right.
Kristen wrote about the aims of the new ILA Study Group on Sanctions of which she is a part, and Bill Dodge wrote a guest post about the Solicitor General’s views in Samantar.
Finally, Jessica wrapped up the international news headlines and I listed the events and announcements.
Have a nice weekend!
This week on Opinio Juris saw Deborah note the publication of current Guantanamo detainee Mohammedou Slahi’s diary and her review that appeared in the Washington Post about it. Peter offered further commentary on his first post on John Boehner’s invitation to Benjamin Netanyahu to address the US Congress, specifically in terms of what the invitation says about constitutional change.
Though he never met him in person, Julian noted the passing of Dr. Luke T. Lee, and paid homage to him and his treatise on Consular Law and Practice.
In light of the hostage situation between ISIS and Jordan/Japan, Jens weighed in on hostages and human dignity. Jens also reported on yesterday’s decision at the ICTY Appeals Chamber, upholding genocide charges in the case of The Prosecutor v. Popovic et al. related to the massacre at Srebrenica in July, 1995.
Duncan highlighted his newest paper, this time he’s written An Intersubjective Treaty Power and a guest post came in from Nimrod Karin, responding to Kevin’s critique of his Just Security posts (here and here), about whether Palestine’s joining the ICC amounted to “lawfare.”
And finally, I updated you on the weekly news and also offered the events and announcements post.
Many thanks to our guest contributor and have a nice weekend!
This week on Opinio Juris, we hosted a symposium on International Law as Behavior, following a workshop at the University of Georgia in late 2014. Elena Baylis discussed the methodological, theoretical and conceptual questions that need to be grappled with when studying international law as behavior, while Galit Sarfaty provided insights from anthropology for the study of international law behavior. More specific issues were dealt with in posts by Jean Galbraith, who reflected on the use of deadlines in international law, Tim Meyer, who described instances of epistemic cooperation as a way of encouraging states to coordinate their behavior, and Harlan Cohen, who addressed the puzzling phenomenon of precedent in international law. Tomer Broude applied behavioural theory to the ongoing negotiations on the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA), and Harlan Cohen closed the symposium with reflections on the agenda for the study of international law as behavior.
The Palestinian ratification of the Rome Statute and its article 12(3) declaration was the subject of extensive commentary. Kevin disagreed with Nimrod Karin’s posts on Just Security that these steps amount to “lawfare”. He also argued why an investigation into Arafat’s death would be problematic. The issues of settlements in the West Bank was discussed in Ido Rosenzweig’s guest post and by Kevin who explained why the Palestinian Authority cannot use an ICC investigation as leverage to freeze settlement construction.
Foreign affairs law issues came up in Peter’s discussion of the constitutionality of Boehner’s invite to Netanyahu in light of precedents where the Logan Act was invoked, Julian’s argument that President Obama needs congressional approval to lift the trade embargo on Cuba, and Julian’s analysis whether a US-Iranian nuclear deal should take the form of an article II treaty with its requirement of congressional approval.
In other posts, Fox News came under fire from Kevin for its report on Paris’ “no-go” zones and from Deborah over its factual inaccuracies in reports on Muslims in the UK and France. Kristen updated us on the Haiti Cholera case where the SDNY upheld the UN’s immunity, and Kevin posted a youtube video of a protest song on Australia’s detention centre on Manus Island
Finally, Jessica wrapped up the international news headlines and I rounded up the events and announcements.
Many thanks to our guest contributors and have a nice weekend!
This week, we celebrated Opinio Juris’ 10th anniversary, with our permabloggers weighing in with their thoughts on the last decade of blogging. Julian kicked the discussion off with how the legal blogosphere has changed over the last ten years. Roger reflected on blogging and the marketplace of ideas. In Peter’s musings, he explored the evolution of international law as well as the role blogging has played and will play in the future. Duncan shared nine realizations that he has made over the last decade through blogging and teaching. Making international law no longer the invisible college but visible and accessible was at the heart of Peggy’s contribution.
Chris asked about the must-reads and key scholarly texts in international law over the last decade. Through tracing her own journey into international law, Deborah thanked Opinio Juris and the readers for the conversation. Kevin reflected on how blogging enhanced his career, and helped him to develop into the nicer, kinder blog version of himself he is today. Jens touched on the real-world impact blogging can and does have, while hoping for a continued discourse. Kristin capped the joviality off by wishing the blog a happy birthday and looking forward to the continued discussion.
Other contributions of note this week were two guest posts. The first from Rebecca Hamilton posed the question: When should the ICC call it quits? The second, by Oliver Windridge, was a great overview of the activities of the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights from 2014.
Duncan congratulated Dean Andrew Guzman on his new appointment at USC’s Gould School of Law and Kevin pondered the case of Roger Ver and whether renouncing US citizenship for “selfish economic reasons” makes you a bad person. And as usual, I wrapped up the week’s headlines and posted Events and Announcements.
Thanks for following us this week, and over the last decade. We’re very grateful to you readers for being part of the development of Opinio Juris and hope that the conversation continues far into the future.
This holiday season, we trust Santa was still as safe as back in 1961 and that nobody received a lump of coal. We found some time to post, so if you were too busy to visit our blog, here is what you missed.
Kevin posted about a virtual roundtable on David Bosco’s “Rough Justice” in which he participated over at H-Diplo, and linked to his new essay on the use and abuse of analogy in IHL. Deborah agreed with Cliff Sloan on the closing of Guantanamo. Catherine Harwood wrote about the UN HRC inquiry into human rights violations in North Korea and Larry Backer commented on the recent normalisation of US-Cuban relations.
Finally, I listed the events and announcements and Jessica wrapped up the international law news (1, 2).
Watch this space next week as we mark our tenth anniversary!
Many thanks to our guest contributors and have a nice weekend!