Search: Affective Justice: Book Symposium: A Response

Our esteemed guest blogger Michael Scharf and my Washington College of Law colleague Paul Williams brought out a very interesting volume from Cambridge UP last year, Shaping Foreign Policy in Times of Crisis: The Role of International Law and the State Department Legal Adviser. Over at Lawfare, Jennifer Daskal, friend to many of us from her days at Human Rights Watch and the last couple of years at the Justice Department, and currently a Georgetown fellow, reviews the book. (PS: And congratulations to Jen on her new baby, now a...

I’d find it difficult to think of a book more deserving of the ASIL certificate of merit than Anthea Roberts’ Is International Law International? This is especially so because this is a book about international lawyers, rather than about the law as such; it is a foray into a sociology of our profession, examining in particular to what extent that profession is really a common or shared one. The book explores many themes – internationalism v. parochialism, centre/periphery dynamics, the need for more rigorous empiricism rather than casual reliance on...

...a basis for attacking the feasibility of much of the normative work that espouses changing the status quo in international law. In IL, a field that remains driven largely by normative agendas, realists constantly raise annoying facts and analyses that spoil the party. Finally, realists don’t see nearly as much customary law in the world as most international lawyers who aspire to build a more legalized world order. What’s not to hate? This book chapter argues that realism remains very much alive, not only because international lawyers have kept it...

[Richard H. Steinberg is Professor of Law at the University of California. Los Angeles; Visiting Professor of International, Comparative & Area Studies at Stanford University; and Director of the Sanela Diana Jenkins Human Rights Project.] I am grateful for Ian Hurd’s thoughtful comment on my book chapter partly because it supports my claim that that everyone borrows from the realist tradition. Moreover, Hurd’s comment inadvertently recapitulates a narrow structural realist view of international law (recalling the associated dysfunctional debate of the 1980s) that I intended my chapter to supersede, offering...

...International Law and Politics, and the Harvard International Law Journal. We had book discussions on Anupam Chander’s book The Electonic Silk Road, Freya Baetens’ edited volume on investment law within international law, Jeffrey Dunoff’s and Mark Pollack’s edited volume on international law and international relations theory, Katerina Linos’s book The Democratic Foundations of Policy Diffusion: How Health, Family and Employment Laws Spread Across Countries , Eric Posner and Alan Sykes’s book The Economic Foundations of International Law, and Curtis Bradley’s book International Law in the U.S. Legal System. We also...

John Yoo and I will be discussing our new book, Taming Globalization, tomorrow night, Wednesday, March 28, 2012 from 6-8 p.m., at the The New York Athletic Club, 180 Central Park South New York, New York in an event hosted by the Federalist Society. Anyone who is interested is welcome to attend! For those of you on Long Island (and I know there must be at least a couple out there) we are holding a similar event at Hofstra Law School, Room 308 on Thursday, March 29 from 6-8 p.m....

Over the coming ten days, we are proudly kicking off the new year with our first book symposium of 2019 on Kubo Mačák‘s new book, Internationalized Armed Conflicts in International Law, published by Oxford University Press. In addition to comments from Kubo himself, we have the honor to hear from this list of renowned scholars and practitioners: Laurie Blank, Bill Boothby, Susan Breau, Katharine Fortin, Elvina Pothelet, Anne Quintin, Tamas Hoffmann and our own Priya Pillai and Alonso Gurmendi Dunkelberg. From the publisher: This book provides the first comprehensive analysis...

I wanted to flag for readers an on-line discussion that we are planning for next Monday-Wednesday, March 2-4. We will be pleased to host Richard Gardiner (University College London) for a discussion of his book, Treaty Interpretation. In addition to comments by the regular contributors, we will have several distinguished guest bloggers, all of whom know a thing or two about treaties: Isabelle van Damme (Clare College, Cambridge), Malgosia Fitzmaurice (University of London, Queen Mary), and Jan Klabbers (Helsinki). Among the potential topics will be discussion of the continuing vitality...

[Elvina Pothelet is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Geneva. Her research interests focus on the international law governing the use of force, the law of armed conflict and war crime law.] Kubo Mačák’s book is a rich and thought-provoking contribution to the scholarship on IHL applicability. The writing style and structure of the book make it a smooth and enjoyable read – to the extent this is possible for a book dealing with armed conflicts. The author’s expert analysis of the law is enriched with plenty of historical...

...what I thought everyone needs to get through their everyday struggles. My reference to Miyazaki in the epilogue of my book was not a historically contemporaneous one like the other, but reflected the fact that I was watching and reading a lot about Miyazaki as a way to take a break from my book. It was also a future oriented gesture pointing to where I wanted my work to go after the book. Buried in the second part of a long pedantic documentary about Miyazaki’s daily routine making Princess Mononoke...

...tension between America’s constitutional traditions and its global ambitions. Throughout this book I pay close attention to the international context, particularly to the changing global role of the U.S. In this sense the book is an example of what political scientists call “2nd image-reversed” analysis: I look carefully at how the international system shaped the content and direction of domestic law. As a weak power, the U.S. showed considerable solicitude for traditional Westphalian principles. As a superpower, it was far more willing to bend and even break established doctrine in...

...as held by any sovereign in any other society.” After the other two cabinet members expressed views more in line with Hamilton than Jefferson, Washington urged them all to reach a consensus. “He seemed to direct those efforts more towards me,” Jefferson recorded dryly, “but the thing could not be done.” Fast-forward to today – and we are still far from consensus on the exact contours of the treaty power in our constitutional system. In a chapter on treaties in his excellent new book, International Law in the U.S. Legal...