Search: Affective Justice: Book Symposium: A Response

I would like to thank Opinio Juris for hosting this book discussion, and I would like to thank the several contributors for their insightful and provocative posts. This post responds specifically to Andrew Kent’s skeptical reaction to David Golove’s claim that the judiciary had an active role in policing executive branch compliance with the laws of war. I believe that the book provides a fair amount of support for Professor Golove’s claim, at least through the Spanish-American war. After the Quasi-War with France, the Supreme Court invalidated wartime seizures of...

responses’, which peppered Alexander’s original written responses and that are now (thanks to Edward Snowden I assume) largely absent from Rogers’ answers; and (c) the softening of the language regarding the U.S. willingness to respond in self-defense where attribution is a problem. What do readers think? Is this all one, harmonious, consistent U.S. policy? Or, are there shifts in these responses that bear watching? Anyone interested in comparing the remainder of the two testimonies can do so by seeing what Alexander wrote here versus Rogers’ more recent written responses here....

Jordan Response... In my opinion, the issue of liability under international law is a question of international law, not U.S. domestic law. Logically, one cannot violate international law if one does not have a duty (liability) under international law. I would prefer that the U.S. Supreme Court continue to recognize what it has already recognized in at least 20 Supreme Court cases! -- that corporations and companies can have duties and rights under international law, customary and treaty-based -- as documented in the only law review article to date that...

[insert here] delenda est Fear not, KJH, we believe you - a snarky post would have focused on how you deeply frustrating you find the lack of a gap between the rhetoric and actions of the other side mentioned in the Goldstone report... Whilst I too am glad to see this substantive response, I don't really mind Israel's negative rhetoric to the Goldstone report. It was a tremendous folly to think that that report could ever be other than a weapon to use against Israel...as events have proven. This folly...

Andreas Paulus Julian, Thanks for your response, which I think is very helpful to clearly understand what the debate is about. But there is one point that troubles me in your argument: You argue in favour of dualism (and for the control of the executive branch over international law - government by men, not law, in that sphere), but the Constitution has decided otherwise. That is what Article VI is about. Of course, later case law has it that a treaty must be self-executing, and that makes perfect sense as...

...law in any year unless you want to work as a lawyer in the State Department or certain obscure precincts of the Justice Department, hope to work for an international organization such as the United Nations or an international NGO with a legal agenda such as Human Rights Watch, or have an academic or intellectual interest in international law and international relations. If you are in any of these categories, wait till your second year. For most law students, who aspire to work in regular law firms, or in prosecutor’s...

Catherine Rogers Both Jacob Cogan’s interesting essay, and Larry Helfer’s thoughtful response, address issues of competition and control in international adjudication, focusing on public international law tribunals. While these are an essential part of the story, there are other tribunals and cases that rightly fit in the general category of “international adjudication,” including international arbitral tribunals and national courts. As an initial matter, under virtually any definition, most notably Lon Fuller’s classic formulation, arbitration constitutes a form of adjudication. While ostensibly private, even when States are not parties, international arbitration...

...Wahid thinks the best response is better jurisprudence Filali-Ansary thinks the best response is better politics. There is a middle ground. Wahid suggests that outside the four corners of the Qur’an Islamic law is highly indeterminate and largely reflects past or present political choices. Perhaps both authors would be satisfied with an interpretive approach that opened up space for political discourse by emphasizing ambiguity and narrowing the reach of Islamic law to its clearest applications. Such an approach would deny clear legal support to progressives and their opponents alike, leaving...

[Katharina Pistor, Michael I. Sovern Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, responds to Olivier De Schutter, The Green Rush: The Global Race for Farmland and the Rights of Land Users. This post is part of the Second Harvard International Law Journal/Opinio Juris Symposium.] I would like to thank Opinio Juris for the opportunity to participate in this debate about one of the most pressing issues of our time: the battle for control over increasingly scarce resources, including land, water, and natural resources. The Olivier de Schutter’s “Green Rush” addresses...

of the Modern Position, 110 Harv. L. Rev. 815 (1997). In response to this line of criticism, see, among other responses,Harold Hongju Koh, Is International Law Really State Law?, 111 Harv. L. Rev 1824 (1998). Martii Koskenniemi, From Apology to Utopia (1989). This book is the antecedent to The Gentle Civilizer of Nations, which I mentioned above. It is a more theoretical discussion of the need of international lawyers to not be overly-technical but rather to use social theory to assess the “deep structure” of international legal discourse. As with...

...judge, because the defining issue is power, not justice. However, there is a case to be made that we treat foreign white people better than the other colors. Also, I'm somewhat new here, but I've never read Ben's comments as he's a racial determinist. It's a factor for sure. If you ignore race, which is standard practice, you're missing something. Maybe "it" is important, maybe not, but "it" is always there. Jordan Response... Homefrontsix: The U.S. Const. applies abroad for, at least, U.S. nationals and in the case of an...

So, Alan Dershowitz has decided that international law needs to be “delegitimized,” because it is unfair to Israel. It is reasonable to consider, therefore, what Dershowitz believes a “fair” international law would allow Israel to do. Here is one of his suggestions, from a 2002 Jerusalem Post editorial entitled “New Response to Palestinian Terrorism” (emphasis mine): In light of the willingness of suicide bombers to die in the process of killing Israelis, the traditional methods of deterrence and retaliation seem insufficient. To succeed, Israel must turn the Palestinian leadership and...