One aspect of Amos’ proposal that I think needs to be emphasized is that he suggests curtailing certain types of speech because of certain hoped-for practical advantages in counter-terrorism. It is, essentially, a utilitarian argument. However, taking his suggestion on its own terms, I am not persuaded that the U.S. undertaking a new policy of curtailing religious speech would in...
In its motion to dismiss the ACLU/CCR lawsuit, the government argues that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the lawsuit on al-Aulaqi's behalf, because al-Aulaqi has the option of surrendering to the government and bringing the lawsuit himself: Defendants state that if Anwar al-Aulaqi were to surrender or otherwise present himself to the proper authorities in a peaceful and appropriate manner,...
Thanks to Opinio Juris for inviting me to comment on Professor Guiora's new book. I look forward to the interchange with him and the other participants. Professor Guiora deserves credit for tackling the very controversial and timely topic of religious terrorism. Much of what he says is thought-provoking. He tries to be fair and avoid “religion-bashing.” He concedes that religion can...
Society has historically ---unjustifiably and blindly---granted religion immunity. That immunity has been expanded to include religious extremism; doing so, presents an imminent danger to civil society. In many ways the failure to adequately protect society falls squarely on the shoulders of society; the refusal to directly address religious extremists is purely self-imposed. Religious extremists manipulate society’s sensitivities which, in large...
Between Jose's guest blogging and book discussion we are about to start on Amos Guiora's book on religious freedom I want to sandwich a short notice about my recent favorite topic: no-holds-barred full contact chess arbitration. Backstory: here for the arbitration, here for the Russian regional politics and space aliens,and here for how it relates to the proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero. I...
As a member of the U.S. State Department’s Advisory Committee on International Law, I was asked to give my reactions to the International Law Commission’s release, on first reading, of a set of proposed articles on the Responsibility of International Organizations. (For the ILC’s report containing these draft articles and commentaries, see here). I was probably asked to undertake this...
Ben Wittes at Lawfare and Adam Serwer at TAPPED traded posts today on the government's motion to dismiss the ACLU/CCR lawsuit. I think the exchange -- particularly Wittes' response to Serwer -- illustrates perfectly why discussions about national security between conservatives and progressives always seem to have a Pinteresque quality. Here is the point to which Wittes responded: I think it's...
In the same month that I traveled to Barcelona, I went to Paris to attend a conference organized by Paris I Professors Emmanuelle Jouannet and Hélène Ruiz Fabri and Professor Mark Toufayan of the University of Ottawa. According to its organizers, the purpose of the symposium, on “The Third World Today: Assessment and Perspectives,” was to “evaluate the situation of...
The IISD’s paper on transparency I mentioned this morning demonstrates why the investment regime is globalization’s Rorschach test. Recent scholarship (most prominently the work of one of the participants at Barcelona, York University Professor Gus Van Harten (see, e.g., “A Case for an International Investment Court,” available here) contends that investor-state arbitration is nothing like the commercial arbitration between private...
The opportunity to guest blog on Opinio Juris is most appreciated. It is almost like having the ASIL Presidency forum all over again. My first topic emerges from a conference hosted by the Canadian-based Institute for Sustainable Development in Barcelona in July 2010. The Institute invited a number of practitioners and scholars to address the topics of transparency and independence in...
In the past few hours, both Jack Goldsmith and Ben Wittes have argued that the Obama administration has "reluctantly" claimed that the ACLU/CCR lawsuit must be dismissed because of the state-secrets privilege. Here, for example, is Ben: This is not in any sense a chest-thumping invocation of the privilege but a most reluctant one that quite overtly attempts...
The Obama administration recently filed its motion to dismiss the ACLU/CCR lawsuit that seeks to enjoin the government from using lethal force against Anwar al-Aulaqi. Predictably, the motion relies on a potpourri of reasons why no court should ever review the lawfulness of Obama's determination that an American citizen abroad should be summarily executed, including everyone's favorite "state secrets" privilege. ...
