Search: Affective Justice: Book Symposium: A Response
02 Mar Deterring the Next Invasion: Applying the Accumulation of Events Theory to Cyberspace
...the actions taken in self-defense to a series of wrongful acts should not be judged through the limited scope of an immediate response to an isolated attack; rather, the actions should be viewed as a response to the total consequences. For Israel’s claim, the Security Council refused to aggregate the PLO’s series of attacks and deemed Israel’s actions to be in violation of international law. Conducting a strict reading of the language of Article 51, the Security Council could only scrutinize Israeli action taken in response to particularized attacks by...12 Feb Rational Choice and Broader Conceptions of International Law, A Response to Jeff Dunoff
Thank to Jeff for this thought provoking comment and his kind words about my book. I am not sure that my response addresses all his concerns, but I hope it at least speaks to some of them! Let me first state that while I agree with much of what Jeff has stated in his post, I do not agree when he says that my conception of compliance presupposes a particular understanding of international law. My book’s central focus is an attempt to explain how a rule of international law can...04 Nov A Response to Sasha Greenawalt by Mark A. Drumbl
[Mark A. Drumbl is a Professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law] In Complementarity in Crisis: Uganda, Alternative Justice, and the International Criminal Court, Professor Alexander Greenawalt strikes a cautionary note. He underscores that the ICC cannot on its own effectively serve transitional justice interests. It needs help. In the end, Sasha concludes that “the Ugandan peace process reveals the [ICC] to be a promising but unstable institution, one whose legitimacy may ironically depend on help from external stakeholders, including the very political actor – the UN Security...26 Jan A Response to Mark Wu by Scott Kennedy
[Scott Kennedy, associate professor of Political Science and East Asian Languages & Cultures and director of the Research Center for Chinese Politics & Business at Indiana University, responds to Mark Wu, Antidumping in Asia’s Emerging Giants. This post is part of the Third Harvard International Law Journal/Opinio Juris Symposium.] Antidumping: Less Change than Meets the Eye Mark Wu’s article, “Antidumping in Asia’s Emerging Giants,” is an impressive piece of scholarship and deserves widespread attention. He analyzes how an already controversial element of the trading system, the antidumping regime, has become...14 Nov MJIL Symposium: A Response to Ramesh Thakur and Thomas Weiss by Spencer Zifcak
[Spencer Zifcak is Allan Myers Professor of Law and Director of the Institute of Legal Studies at the Australian Catholic University.] This post is part of the MJIL vol13(1) Symposium. Other posts in this series can be found in the related posts below. I begin this response by acknowledging the two commentators. Ramesh Thakur and Tom Weiss are, together with Gareth Evans, the pre-eminent writers in the field — as well as each having played formative role in the creation of the Responsibility to Protect (‘R2P’) doctrine in the first...
03 Jun Non-innocence Under Article 19(2)(a) UNCLOS: A Response to Cavalcanti de Mello Filho
...therefore may not be interrupted by the coastal State based on such passage being non-innocent; but second, that coastal States could potentially interrupt such vessels as a lawful countermeasure under the law of State responsibility. This response will engage with the first argument on the interpretation of “innocent” passage in Article 19 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Specifically, in contrast to Cavalcanti de Mello Filho’s interpretation of Article 19(2)(a) UNCLOS, I argue that any threats or use of force in violation of...06 Sep Response from the EIC of the Journal of the History of International Law
[The following is a response from Anne Peters, the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of the History of International Law] Dear readers, The JHIL received this letter and had agreed towards the authors in writing to publish it in the JHIL as soon as possible. Publication in JHIL does not imply any agreement or endorsement by the editors or by the academic advisory board of the opinions expressed in an article. The selection of articles for the journal occurs through double blind peer review on the basis of their academic quality....
09 Nov The AU’s Position on Personal Immunity: A Response to Coracini & Trahan
...seen before: namely, the insinuation that the African Union (AU) believes international courts do not have to recognise personal immunity. I assume that claim is a response to my contrary one in the article mentioned above — opposition that I have cited as a reason to be skeptical of the idea (endorsed by a number of scholars) that the General Assembly will support a Special Tribunal in large numbers. Here is what Coracini and Trahan say about the AU, referencing the Jordan case: It is worthy of note that during...07 Feb A Response to Pierre-Hugues Verdier by Stavros Gadinis
...because their parallels are by no means obvious: the European effort is long, multifaceted, and part of a larger geopolitical project, whereas the US-Australia effort is a response to specific market needs. Verdier brings to light their common goals, and convincingly argues that we have a lot to learn by contrasting them. The comparison of these two efforts allows Verdier to ask a key question: does mutual recognition need the full institutional machinery of the EU in order to be effective? Or can it work through a simple arrangement between...