Search: Affective Justice: Book Symposium: A Response

[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...

[Jonathan Turner is a barrister in London and Chief Executive of UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI) ] Practising advocates know that what is not included in reply submissions is usually more interesting than what is there. One of the omissions in the ICC Prosecutor’s recent Response on the issue of the Court’s territorial jurisdiction in respect of Palestine is that it does not address the argument made by the amicus, UKLFI, based on the rights of the Jewish people derived from the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. Indeed, while...

...State Department?” That is, isn’t it plausible that increased engagement is simply “the result of Congress having ratified a number of treaties with reporting obligations, and authority for fulfilling those obligations having been turned over to the Legal Advisor’s Office”? There are two distinct responses to this important question. First, it is useful to underscore that my article does not in fact make any claim about the cultures and roles of the U.S. Congress and the Office of the Legal Advisor. To the contrary, the crux of my argument is...

...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...

...courts read that as meaning consequential damages are included and others read the fact that consequential damages is excluded from the litany of possible damages as meaning that consequential damages are not available to a seller. Both judges would look at the same text and say this is what they mean. Whether that is using the law as a means to an end can be discussed. I think that where the judge is seeking justice is not such a bad thing. I sensed that Stevens was seeking justice. Best, Ben...

...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...

...the key reasons aid does not reach them is because ‘government officials took it.’ This is not a new dynamic, but it is an ongoing challenge. The crisis has brought massive resource flows intended to stem the violence and provide life-saving aid to communities, but for some, these became lucrative opportunities, and the crisis became profitable. From Famine to Permanent Crisis The large-scale humanitarian response began in 2016 in response to evidence of a growing humanitarian crisis, and as would later be discovered, conditions of famine. In August 2016, the...

[Avraham Russell Shalev is a lawyer and researcher at Kohelet Policy Forum in Israel] Editors’ Note: This article is a response to a post by Alonso Gurmendi, available here. To read Alonso’s rejoinder, please see here. In a recent article, Alonso Gurmendi responded to a legal opinion released by the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists in the context of the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion on the “legal consequences on practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”. The authors of the Opinion critique the assumption inherent in the request for the...

[Maarten den Heijer is assistant professor of international law at the Amsterdam Center of International Law and member of the editorial board of the European Human Rights Cases (EHRC) and contributor to the Dutch Journal for Human Rights] Praise is due to the collaboration between Leiden Journal of International Law and Opinio Juris in providing this platform for reflection and discussion – in this instance on my paper on diplomatic asylum and Julian Assange. I much enjoyed reading the responses of Gregor Noll and Roger O’Keefe and am greatly appreciative...

I am grateful for the opportunity to read and comment on Peter Danchin’s “Suspect Symbols: Value Pluralism as a Theory of Religious Freedom in International Law.” The tolerance that it advocates reflects a generally healthy human rights impulse. Hence, I wish that I could write a positive response to the article into which a great deal of thought and work has obviously gone. Unfortunately, while it is well-written and literate, I disagree with a number of its ideas – and find some of them especially alarming from a women’s human...

[Frédéric Mégret, Assistant Professor of Law at McGill University Faculty of Law and Canada Research Chair in the Law of Human Rights and Legal Pluralism, responds to Philip Alston, Hobbling the Monitors: Should U.N. Human Rights Monitors be Accountable?. This post is part of the Second Harvard International Law Journal/Opinio Juris Symposium.] Philip Alston’s article on special rapporteurs suggests that there may be some merit on hobbling them a little, just not necessarily in the way that a majority of states at the Human Rights Council seem to want. The...

[Pierre-Hugues Verdier, author of Mutual Recognition in International Finance, responds to the comments by Stavros Gadinis and Eric Pan] I would first like to thank Professors Pan and Gadinis for their generous and insightful comments on my article. While it is impossible to offer a full response in this forum, I would like to offer some thoughts on three salient points. First, as Professor Pan correctly points out, financial cooperation arrangements that share important features of mutual recognition have existed for decades. However, I believe the arrangements described in the...