[Dov Jacobs is the Senior Editor for Expert Blogging at the Leiden Journal of International Law and Assistant Professor of International Law at Leiden University]
In the upcoming days, you will find food for thought with regard to four articles featured in issues 26-2 and 26-3 of the
Leiden Journal of International Law, covering a wide range of contemporary discussions in international law.
The first discussion stems from Janina Dill’s article entitled “
Should International Law Ensure the Moral Accountability of War?”
. In this piece, the author discusses recent just war theories that argue the need of international humanitarian law (IHL) to regulate killing in war in accordance with individuals’ liability by moving away from the collective dimension of protected status. The author posits that such proposal is not realizable, and suggests ways to improve the current system. In their thoughtful discussions of the article,
Gabriella Blum of Harvard Law School, and
Christopher Kutz of Berkeley Law, invite the author to forward her argument yet further. Specifically, Gabriella Blum suggests that individual human rights can and should be taken into account in the context of war, while Christopher Kutz questions Dr. Dill’s premise that the collective approach to war in IHL is in contradiction with the general evolution of International Law towards taking into account individual rights.
The second discussion revolves around
Maarten den Heijer’s article,
Diplomatic Asylum and the Assange case, where he argues that granting such asylum contradicts a number of principles of international law.
Gregor Noll, from Lund University, and
Roger O’Keefe, from Cambridge University, challenge the author’s premises, both in relation to his historical analysis and in relation to his evaluation of the legal framework.
The third discussion focuses on
Devika Hovell’s proposals in
A Dialogue Model: The Role of the Domestic Judge in Security Council Decision-Making. In the article, the author discusses the ways in which domestic and regional judges (EU, ECHR) deal with United Nations Security Council Resolutions and suggests the need to go beyond the classical notions of bindingness and hierarchy. She proposes instead a more subtle and elaborate “dialogue model”.
Erika de Wet, of the Universities of Amsterdam and Pretoria, and
Piet Eeckhout, from University College London, draw attention to the limits of the author’s model within the current international law structure and in context of the states’ international legal obligations. In a nutshell, the professors argue dialogue is not always possible.
Finally, the fourth discussion is an interchange between
Zoran Oklopcic and
Brad Roth, from Wayne State University, on the former’s challenge in “
Beyond Empty, Conservative, and Ethereal: Pluralist Self-Determination and a Peripheral Political Imaginary” to the latter’s allegedly “empty” concept of self-determination. Brad Roth defends his “empty” notion of self-determination, pointing out the difficulties of actually identifying the substance of such principle.
Aside from the in-depth and engaging appraisal of the specific issues contained in the articles, the various discussions all either directly or indirectly touch upon what has historically been at the heart of international law:
