In association with the International Commission of Jurists

General

04 Feb

We are very grateful to Professors Ginsburg, Vandenbergh, Cohen, and Wiener for engaging in this dialogue with us. The value of discussing these issues with such leading scholars in the field cannot be overstated. Professor Ginsburg’s very helpful comments push us to focus on two main points: (1) the U.S. has similar internal dynamics that make committing to a climate change...

|
04 Feb

[Jonathan B. Wiener is the Perkins Professor of Law and Environmental Policy at Duke University; Eli Goldston Visiting Professor at Harvard Law School; and a University Fellow at Resources for the Future] In their paper on the "Two Chinas" and climate change policy, Professors Abebe and Masur raise an important point about how China's internal politics may affect its international relations....

|
04 Feb

[Michael P. Vandenbergh is Tarkington Professor of Law; Director, Climate Change Research Network; and Co-Director, Regulatory Program at Vanderbilt University Law School. Mark Cohen is Vice President for Research, Resources for the Future; Director, Vanderbilt Center for Environmental Management Studies; Professor of Management and Law, Owen Graduate School of Management at Vanderbilt University.] Daniel Abebe and Jonathan Masur have made an...

|
04 Feb

[Tom Ginsburg is a Professor at the University of Chicago Law School] Thanks for this opportunity to respond to the Article by Professors Abebe and Masur.  My learned colleagues are certainly correct that, notwithstanding its status as a unitary and authoritarian state, China is an internally complicated place, with substantial de facto control at the provincial level.  Besides the East-West cleavages...

|
04 Feb

As Kevin notes, the ICC Appeals Chamber has overruled the Pre-Trial Chamber on the question of whether Sudan's President Bashir can be charged with genocide.  In a very useful note, Chile Eboe-Osuji points out here that the Appeals Chamber did not in fact provide the Pre-Trial Chamber with guidance on what standard it should adopt to determine whether there was...

|
04 Feb

I've been on blog-silence the last few months, but one of my students today made me feel a little guilty about my lack of blogging, so I'm back (at least for now).  So while not wanting to interrupt this great online symposium, I'll just point our readers to this remarkable little exchange between U.S. Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair...

|
02 Feb

I would first like to thank Professor Guy Mundlak for generously taking the time to respond to my Article, and Opinio Juris for hosting this forum. Professor Mundlak is very correct to note that over time civil liberties and socioeconomic matters have become more intertwined. What’s more, the overlapping identities and realms in which workers function mean that to be protected...

|
01 Feb

Thank you to Professor Corn for his exceptionally thoughtful response to the article. His observations illustrate vividly, and persuasively, the apparent choices undergirding the traditional approach my Article critiques. I’ll reply briefly to some of his comments and conclude by highlighting what I perceive to be larger issues in the law of war that our dialogue might provoke. Professor Corn casts...

|
01 Feb

[Geoffrey Corn is an Associate Professor at South Texas College of Law] Let me begin by extending my compliments to Prof. Watts for his exceptionally well-written article, and my thanks for his suggestion that I provide comment. I am also grateful to my friends at Opinio Juris for extending this opportunity to me—it is nice to be back! CNA obviously represents one...

|
30 Jan

A note to our readers:  I inadvertently jumped the gun a bit in my earlier post about the Security Council and raised Professor Michael Glennon's YJIL article, The Blank Prose Crime of Aggression, on which Kevin has also commented.  We imagine that some readers will also want to weigh in.  It turns out that in March, we will be discussing...

|
29 Jan

Cross-posted at Balkinization Ok, the headline is a bit misleading. It’s only two justices – Scalia and Thomas – who, in dissenting from a denial of certiorari by the Supreme Court this week, argued that the Court should settle once and for all whether detainees can invoke the Geneva Conventions in federal court. Lyle Denniston, as usual, reports the dissent-from-denial here,...

|