In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Search: Affective Justice: Book Symposium: A Response

18 May

Jean d’Aspremont’s supremely kind comments on my article require little response other than an expression of appreciation. Jean’s knowledge in this field is second to none, and the differences in our perceptions of these topics are minute. But it is, perhaps, worth clarifying my position on the recognition of coup regimes and the question of a democratic entitlement in international law.   There is no question that the international order has departed from the strict anti-interventionism that underlies what I have termed ‘the effective control doctrine’. Coups against ‘freely and...
18.05.11 | |

06 Sep

[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....
06.09.17 | |

03 Apr

...reasoning, the relatively muted international response could suggest that members of the international community might be willing to entertain preemptive self-defense under such extreme circumstances. In sum, the question of whether international law now recognizes a right to preemptive self-defense against nuclear threats remains highly contested. But the evolution of the international position from “Opera” to “Outside the Box,” even after Israel acknowledged its role in the latter, is telling. Both scholars and politicians will likely take this evolution into account in discerning state practice on this question going forward....
03.04.18 | |

03 Jan

Seth has finished his very successful tenure as a guest-blogger here at Opinio Juris and his legacy goes on. One of his posts on the potential for universal human rights deeply intrigued a colleague of mine at Hofstra, Bernard Jacobs, a professor of constitutional law and a classics scholar. His thoughtful and interesting response to Seth’s post is below: I read with interest Professor Weinberger’s piece marveling at the possibility of conflict between International Human Rights and ‘local practice, custom and tradition in the developing worlds.’ Since I live in...
03.01.06 | |

24 Nov

...(a point acknowledged in the above commentary but not in the article itself). Nor does IHL provide national authorities with any authority to capture and detain individuals engaged in non-international armed conflicts without the privilege of doing so. Rather, such responses will continue to be governed by other sources of national and international law, including the law of the sea and international human rights law. So, even applying IHL to this potential scenario results in a renvoi to a law enforcement model of capture, detention, and prosecution. Regardless of the...
24.11.10 | |

07 Feb

...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...
07.02.11 | |

14 Nov

[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...
14.11.12 | |

17 Jul

intelligence. (p.4) Hill’s book is a treatment of the lessons in statecraft that one can glean from great literature. (However, note this criticism of Hill and his book.) If it “has not been much recognized” that those books can have lessons in statecraft, I’d like to propose that it has been even less recognized that there are some great insights to be learned from fantastic fiction. Science fiction, fantasy, speculative fiction, books described in this way are rarely described as “great literature.” And when they are, it is sometimes as...
17.07.13 | |

06 Jul

...the 1903 Royal Commission on Alien Immigration and the Alien’s Act 1905. The book contains the most detailed legal analysis of the 1915-6 Hussein-McMahon correspondence, as well as the Balfour Declaration, and takes a closer look at the travaux préparatoires that formed the British Mandate of Palestine. It places the violent reaction of the Palestine Arabs to mass Jewish immigration in the context of Zionism, highlighting the findings of several British commissions of inquiry which recommended that Britain abandon its policy. The book also revisits the controversies over the question...
06.07.11 | |

16 Nov

[Susan Kneebone is a Professor at Monash University] This post is part of the MJIL 13(1) Symposium. Other posts in this series can be found in the related posts below. In her article Associate Professor Michelle Foster argues that there are limits imposed by the Refugee Convention and international law to the circumstances in which states may lawfully engage in transfer arrangements for asylum seekers, euphemistically known as ‘responsibility sharing’. In that and an earlier article,[1] to which French CJ in the High Court in Plaintiff M70 referred with approval,[2]...
16.11.12 | |

18 Jul

...peer review articles is that while your journal articles are peer reviewed (and this subject to the political self-interest) you also have "books" published through Oxford. Well it seems like the books are the subject to the same "peer reviewed" approval process. https://global.oup.com/academic/authors/submissions/?cc=il&lang=en& I also understand that in the peer review process you can "suggest" peer reviewers - ??? Is this true? So one can "suggest" people one knows will be partial to approving because the author cites to them in the paper or suggests personal friends or known political...
18.07.15 | |

03 May

...Bagram) actually imprisoned? And, who, lawfully, in the United States, gets to decide - not years later in response to better-than-nothing habeas petitions, but initially - and how, that persons captured out of uniform, without a weapon, and away from any actual hostile enemy action, are "combatants" for a NON-State party in a NON-international armed conflict whose detention the international law of war evidently leaves (both in theory and in practice) almost entirely to the discretion and supervision of the domestic law of the individual State party holding the prisoners?...
03.05.12 | |