In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Recent Posts

25 Mar

[Andrew Guzman is Professor of Law and Director of the Advanced Law Degree Programs at Berkeley Law School, University of California, Berkeley.] This is a superb book.  I say this without the slightest bit of surprise, as that is what one would expect from these authors.  In addition to the quality of the content, the book is all the more important because there is no comparable tour of international law from a law and economics perspective.  I have disagreements with some of the content of the book – it would be impossible to produce a serious book with respect to which other scholars were in total agreement – but this should now be a central part of the canon, not only of the law and economics of international law, but of international more broadly. It is perhaps a sign of a maturing discussion within international law that the book does not bother to include a discussion of why studying international law from an economic perspective is useful.  This area of legal scholarship has been slow to embrace analytical approaches and for many years anyone writing in that style felt the need to defend the methodology itself.  It would be wonderful if we have moved past that point. That said, it is worth noting that one of the benefits of an economic approach is that it encourages us to make clear our assumptions and models of behavior.  In so doing we more fully disclose our intellectual commitments which, in turn, allows others to challenge or build on our claims.  When we disagree, we can more effectively examine one another’s arguments and identify the precise points in dispute. In my brief comment, I would like to take advantage of this feature and build off of some of what Posner-Sykes say to make a point about international cooperation in general and, more explicitly, in the area of climate change.  I do not know if the authors would agree with my views, but the discipline imposed by an economic approach should, at a minimum, make clear why we disagree.
|
25 Mar

This week we're hosting a symposium on Economic Foundations of International Law, the new book by Eric Posner and Alan Sykes. Here is the abstract: The ever-increasing exchange of goods and ideas among nations, as well as cross-border pollution, global warming, and international crime, pose urgent questions for international law. Here, two respected scholars provide an intellectual framework for assessing these...

|
25 Mar

The EU has approved a new bailout for Cyprus. The leader of Syria's opposition has resigned. The Syrian crisis has also triggered a political crisis in neighboring Lebanon, as this article in the FT explains. The UN has reported that at least 35 have been killed over the weekend in Lubumbashi in southeast Congo when militia attacked the city before surrendering to UN troops. Violence in Mali continues as the army battles...

|
25 Mar

It's always exciting when the media pays attention to expert reports on international law. Unfortunately, the media all too often gets international law wrong -- and recent reporting on the Tallinn Manual on International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare is no exception. There has been a spate of articles in the past couple of days that breathlessly claim the Tallinn Manual...

|
24 Mar

Upcoming Events On April 8-9, 2013, The Institute for International Law and Justice, New York University School of Law, in partnership with the Schumpeter Research Group at the University of Giessen, is organizing a conference on Innovation in Governance of Development Finance: Causes, Consequences and the Role of Law.  Registration is now open here. Registration is now open for the Twenty-first Annual Conference...

|
23 Mar

This week on Opinio Juris, CIA drone strikes remained in the spotlight. Continuing on last week's post, Kevin tried to get to the bottom of the CIA's involvement in drone strikes and whether it is sufficient to trigger criminal liability, which sparked a long discussion in the comments with John C. Dehn. Deborah welcomed news reports about a possible transfer of the...

|
22 Mar

Ben Emmerson, counsel for al-Senussi, has asked the Pre-Trial Chamber to refer Libya to the Security Council for ignoring its February 6 decision ordering Libya to transfer al-Senussi to the Court. Here are the key paragraphs: 3. It has been almost six weeks since the Chamber‟s Order of 6 February, and Libya has failed to comply with every one of these...

|
22 Mar

Italy has promised India that the two Italian marines facing murder charges over the killing of two Indian fishermen mistaken for pirates will return to India today, after promises were made that the special court set up to rule on their case will respect their fundamental rights. Ahead of Chinese President Xi Jinping's visit to Russia, President Putin has said that the two...

|
21 Mar

Jhesus-Maria, King of England, and you, Duke of Bedford, who call yourself regent of the Kingdom of France, you, Guillaume de la Poule, count of Suffort, Jean, sire of Talbot, and you, Thomas, sire of Scales, who call yourselves lieutenants of the Duke of Bedford, acknowledge the summons of the King of Heaven.  Render to the Maid here sent by...

|
21 Mar

NATO and the Afghan government have reached an agreement on the phased withdrawal of US special forces from Wardak province, near Kabul. A Zimbabwean court has denied bail to a high profile human rights lawyer arrested over the weekend on charges of obstruction of justice during police searches. After reaffirming ties with Israel, US President Barack Obama faced Palestinian discontent while visiting the occupied West Bank,...

|
20 Mar

From Dan Klaidman of the publication formerly known as Newsweek, here’s what I’d call good news: “Three senior U.S. officials tell The Daily Beast that the White House is poised to sign off on a plan to shift the CIA’s lethal targeting program to the Defense Department.” There’ve been hints in the press before that new CIA Director John Brennan in particular favored this approach, but this makes it sound as though it may soon become a reality. Why do I think it’s good news, at least on the relative scale of U.S. targeting operations? A combination of reasons, both legal and organizational, which tend to persuade me that Defense Department (DOD) targeting authority is better constrained than CIA.
|