Topics

Weekday News Wrap: Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Ansar Dine, an al-Qaeda linked group, has destroyed more shrines at a mosque in Timbuktu, Mali, and vowed to continue destroying UNESCO World Heritage Sites. Foreign Policy discusses the issue further here and offers a slideshow of images of the wreckage here. Saudi Arabia has now made it official: it will not be sending female athletes to compete in this year's...

Weekday News Wrap: Tuesday, July 10, 2012

The International Criminal Court handed down the sentence for Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, who received 14 years' imprisonment for conscripting, enlisting and using children under the age of 15 to participate actively in hostilities. The time since March 16, 2006 that he has spent in detention will be deducted from his sentence. Judge Odio Benito wrote a separate and dissenting decision...

Final days to complete the Readers’ Survey

Dear Readers, thank you very much to all our readers who have already taken the time to complete our Readers' Survey. The survey closes at midnight on July 12, Pacific time, so we hope that those who haven't had a chance to complete it yet, will do so soon. Your feedback is important to us! At the end of the survey,...

Is American Foreign Policy Christian? A Conversation with Andrew Preston

Over at the St. John's Center for Law and Religion Forum, my colleague Mark Movsesian has posted a fascinating conversation with Professor Andrew Preston (Cambridge), author of Sword of the Spirit, Shield of the Faith.  Preston's book examines the role faith has played in the conduct of U.S. foreign and military policy over the course of our history.  In this...

Weekday News Wrap: Monday, July 9, 2012

Survivors of the 1995 Srebrenica massacre re-enacted their escape in Bosnia this weekend ahead of Ratko Mladic's trial, which resumed today at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague. Tomorrow, the International Criminal Court will deliver the sentence and reparations order for Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, convicted March 14, 2012 of conscripting and enlisting child soldiers and using them to...

Weekend Roundup June 30-July 6, 2012

This week on Opinio Juris, we had Kevin Jon Heller weighing in on Melinda Taylor's release in Libya and offering thoughts related to whether she should be prosecuted there. Additionally, Kevin Jon proposed a thought experiment regarding ICC-State cooperation in response to the Melinda Taylor situation and gave an analysis offering more evidence as to why Libya is unable to prosecute Saif al-Islam...

LJIL Symposium Vol 25-2: Beyond Constitutionalism – How Radical Pluralism Bites Its Own Tail

[Tom de Boer is a Candidate, Research Master Public International Law at the Amsterdam Law] This post is part of the Leiden Journal of International Law Vol 25-2 symposium. Other posts in this series can be found in the related posts below. To start, I want to thank Nico Krisch for his fair and enlightening reaction to my review essay and the clarifications on his book, and Daniel Halberstam for his interesting contribution to this debate.  Below I will try to analyze the positions of both scholars, react on both commentaries, and clarify my own position on the issue of legal pluralism addressed in Krisch’s book, Beyond Constitutionalism: The Pluralist Structure of Postnational Law. As I note in my review essay, Krisch’s book revolves around the question how best to deal with postnational law, that is characterized by a proliferation of international organizations and fields of international law in which states lose more and more of their sovereignty. This process of internationalization puts strains on democratic decision-making processes at the national level and could potentially lead to alienation from the international legal order of both states and their citizens. How should this problem of an ever-growing messiness at the international level  be addressed from a legal perspective? And what should be the relationship between the legal orders – international, regional and national – that are part of this constellation of postnational law? With his plea for radical pluralism Krisch has positioned himself at the far-end of the spectrum in the debate that flows from these questions. His view constitutes a break with the constitutionalist approach, which aims for a transfer of the qualities of national legal systems – such as a clear hierarchy and enforcement mechanisms of legal rules – to the international level. Krisch aims for an international legal order which is founded on a pluralism that ‘eschews ultimate authority and overarching conflict norms’, in which also the nature of the relationship between the different suborders is principally unsettled.

LJIL Symposium Vol 25-2: Beyond Constitutionalism – Pluralism’s Promise

[Nico Krisch, Professor of International Law, Hertie School of Governance; currently Visiting Professor of Law, Harvard Law School.] This post is part of the Leiden Journal of International Law Vol 25-2 symposium. Other posts in this series can be found in the related posts below. Tom de Boer's review of my recent book, Beyond Constitutionalism: The Pluralist Structure of Postnational Law, presents not only a careful analysis, but also a direct challenge to its normative thrust. This gives me an opportunity to defend and clarify my views, and I am grateful to the editors of the Leiden Journal of International Law for allowing me to do so in this Opinio Juris discussion. De Boer's critique is constitutionalist in nature and internationalist in outlook. What he finds most troubling in the book is that the pluralist structure I defend may allow national courts to question international law's authority on dubious – particular rather than universal – grounds. The potential danger of pluralism, he argues, is much broader than what emerges from the relatively benign examples in the book: pluralism may open Pandora's box to all kinds of problematic action by domestic political and judicial bodies and thus undermine the force of international rules. A constitutionalist order, in de Boer's view, would be better able to protect international law and institutions from such unwarranted challenges. This portrayal of the potential consequences of a pluralist order is not implausible. Pluralism as I see it eschews ultimate authority and overarching conflict norms, and it grants different parts of the global legal order the space to distance themselves from the others. It creates an interplay of suborders in which the relationships are defined from within each suborder, both as between different international regimes and between different layers of law in the interaction of national, regional, and international orders. There is no overarching, hierarchical frame that would order their relations, and consequently no external legal constraint that would keep the suborders from getting it wrong.