Search: Affective Justice: Book Symposium: A Response
13 Feb Why Isn’t There More Soft Law? A Response to Raustiala
In How International Law Works I grapple with the question of how states make the trade-off among the various features of agreements, including hard and soft law. I am not sure I agree that Kal’s empirical puzzle actually exists, but let’s assume it does and see why that might be so. A very similar question is discussed in the book – why are dispute resolution procedures almost never used in soft law agreements? The argument in the book (pp. 157-161) is very close to what follows. One possible explanation for...14 Nov MJIL Symposium: A Response to Spencer Zifcak by Ramesh Thakur
[Ramesh Thakur is Director of the Centre for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament (CNND) in the Crawford School, Australian National University and Adjunct Professor in the Institute of Ethics, Governance and Law at Griffith University.] This post is part of the MJIL 13(1) Symposium. Other posts in this series can be found in the related posts below. Professor Spencer Zifcak has written an insightful article on a topic that is important, timely and will not go away. His analysis and conclusions are judicious, circumspect, balanced and, in consequence, stand the test...25 Nov Response by Professor Ann Bartow, “Obscenity and Community Standards”
...spread of sexually transmitted diseases including HIV due to widespread demands for unsafe sex practices during pornography production are not discussed by Boyce. Nor are the high rates of substance abuse and suicide among performers. He does not engage with any of the scholarly work on this subject at all, nor even the cultural evidence (he could have consulted one of a number of scholarly works, including Sheila Jeffrey’s new book, The Industrial Vagina ). The late (and much missed) David Foster Wallace devoted a chapter of his book Consider...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...
18 Jun Framing Prolonged Occupation
...in response to Israel’s occupation policies. But the Dáil motion’s purposeful use of “de facto annexation” to describe Israeli activities is notable. This is not simply because the Dáil’s framing made Ireland the first state to declare that Israel has annexed territory otherwise understood as occupied. The conceptual shift that informed the Irish pronouncement finds its antecedents in the International Court of Justice’s Wall Opinion which described the construction of a separation barrier as amounting to a fait accompli that threatened permanence and would thus constitute de facto annexation. More...12 Jan Space Law Update – US Won’t Build Death Star, Also Does Not Support Blowing Up Planets
terms of Article 36 of 1977 Additional Protocol I. OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE RESPONSE TO: Secure resources and funding, and begin construction of a Death Star by 2016. This Isn’t the Petition Response You’re Looking For By Paul Shawcross The Administration shares your desire for job creation and a strong national defense, but a Death Star isn’t on the horizon. Here are a few reasons: The construction of the Death Star has been estimated to cost more than 850,000,000,000,000,000. We’re working hard to reduce the deficit, not expand it. The Administration...08 Oct Guest Post: On ‘Humanitarian Intervention’, ‘Lawmaking’ Moments and What the ‘Law Ought to Be’–Counseling Caution Against a New ‘Affirmative Defense to Art. 2 (4)’ After Syria
[Carsten Stahn is Professor of International Criminal Law and Global Justice at Leiden University and Programme Director of the Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies. He is Co-Editor-in-Chief of the Leiden Journal of International Law, Executive Editor of the Criminal Law Forum and project leader of the Jus Post Bellum Project.] Harold Koh’s thought-provoking post on Just Security on ‘Syria and the Law of Humanitarian Intervention – Part II’ illustrates the struggles of international law to cope with injustices and violations of legal norms, including the ban of the prohibition...
11 Feb No, Russia Can (Still) Not be Removed From the UN Security Council: A Response to Thomas Grant and Others: Part Two
...in response to its policy of apartheid, is more controversial: the leading handbook of Schermers and Blokker points out that such a de facto suspension or expulsion would amount to “an illegal circumvention of special procedures such as those laid down in Articles 5 and 6 of the Charter” – action by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council – and would arguably be ultra vires (para. 263). The decision to exclude South Africa from the work of the General Assembly clearly rested upon political support, but...