Search: Symposium on the Functional Approach to the Law of Occupation

...insofar as the approach sees the courts as agents of the domestic legal system, where “internationalists” see them as advancing the international order, as part of the global community of courts. I take the point, but the problem here is that everyone ultimately conceives themselves to be constitutionalist — in the sense of maintaining positions that are consistent with the Constitution —, even those who see federal courts as an entry point for the incorporation of international law. I don’t think the discursive high ground will be so easily captured....

...compared to now. I am wondering if when we are talking about ‘the prolonged implosion of governmental structures and the ensuring incapacity of the government to provide political goods to its internal and external constituencies’ we should speak in terms of levels of dysfunctionality of the state as opposed to failure. It focuses our attention on the functions that are not being met and the solutions to addressing those functional deficiencies. I sense with failed a "paternal' even "neo-colonialist" vision or weight to the words that is problematic. Best, Ben...

so. Status-based immunity. Under international law, status-based immunity covers the current-holder of particular offices, generally limited to the so-called troika of head of state, head of government, and minister of foreign affairs. Conduct-based immunity. Under international law, conduct-based immunity covers officials not entitled to status-based immunity and to all former officials. (2) What?—i.e. what acts are covered by the particular immunity at issue? State immunity. Under international law, state immunity covers public acts (acta jure imperii) but not private acts (acta jure gestionis). Status-based immunity. Under international law, status-based immunity...