Search: Affective Justice: Book Symposium: A Response

...there a terror purpose or merely a targeting? Was there a terror outcome? If not, how can it (objectively) be terrorism? Same Qs re: taking out a nuclear reactor. Dan Joyner I'd like to note that over at EJIL:Talk!, Sahib Singh has posted an excellent piece on countermeasures by the West against Iran, and that I have posted some comments in response to his piece regarding the possibility that Iran may have a legitimate claim of its own to countermeasures in response to internationally wrongful acts committed against it by...

creatures who reveled in a monstrous, inhumane program, thoughtfully created by minds so demented it has to hide its unspeakable, sick conduct in a maze of legal incoherence - and the torture continues in the shameful environs of Guantanamo Bay. The ACLU, like so many corrupted American institutions, now takes a path that deviates from justice, so desperately needed. Joe Response...In response to a comment, going by the logic of that short article, can someone be pardoned by POTUS for something like murder of an ambassador? The op-ed does to...

...as "medical personnel," but that even combatants engaged in such activity were also considered hors de combat. JordanPaust Response... On another point, our Internatonal Criminal Law casebook notes that the ICC "knowledge" standard, which, yes, is different than intent (especially when courts use a knew or was aware approach -- see also the ICC stat. art. 30(2)-(3) re: "knowledge" and even "intent") is actually a higher threshold with respect to criminal responsibility than that under customary international law, which can involve a wanton / reckless disregard lower type of threshold....

...undeserving) influence on (at least the rhetoric of) the Republican Party Michael Darlington By the way, Patrick, I agree that Paul Kennedy's book "The Parliament of Man", which I have read, is very good. It does however have two major failings, I find. I don't know the O'Connell book but will now make a point of reading it. The two weaknesses I see in Paul Kennedy's book both arise, I think, mainly from its being too New York-centric (that's New York as in the UN headquarters in New York), but...

...last fifty years show that American citizens overwhelmingly (between 80 and 90%) believe this false history which, of course, makes them feel better about killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians (mostly women and children) and saving American lives to accomplish the ending of the war. The best book, in my opinion, to explode this myth is The Decision to Use the Bomb by Gar Alperovitz, because it not only explains the real reasons the bombs were dropped, but also gives a detailed history of how and why the myth...

Presidency like George Gilder's Wealth and Poverty. Happy it sells books and does rub the Administration in the way it wants to be rubbed - but that does not deter from the fact that the book has the above fatal flaws. A more interesting book would be why this unrelenting attack on traditional international law that has alienated so many conservative as well as liberal scholars? Maybe it should be called "The limits of limiting international law." Best, Ben Davis Associate Professor of Law University of Toledo College of Law...

...regulative goal is to spell out what it means to do justice to distinction and proportionality by protecting civilians as much as militarily possible. It does not spell out how the attacker’s obligations fall by the wayside if the presence of the civilian population interferes with a belligerent’s ability to conduct effective military operations. A second concern is not that warnings are used to weaken other legal obligations, but that the practice itself violates international law. In circumstances in which the civilian population has in fact no means to leave...

is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born citizen.” Since he is neither “a natural born Citizen, [n]or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” he is not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. For my response to Neal Katyal and Paul Clement article, see Mario Apuzzo, A Response to Neil Katyal and Paul Clement on the Meaning of a Natural Born Citizen , accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-response-to-neil-katyal-and-paul.html . Mario Apuzzo, Esq. Ray Peter Spiro at...

Gabor Rona posted a response to Jens Ohlin yesterday. Jens responded at LieberCode — and now Gabor has responded to Jens’s response (and John Dehn’s comment on his OJ post). Here is what Jens wrote (reposted with permission): Many thanks to Gabor Rona for taking the time to continue this conversation. There’s a lot in Rona’s post, but I want to cut to the heart of the conceptual issue here regarding the inter-operation of these bodies of law. In terms of the relationship between IHL and IHRL, and the notion...

that have to date blocked any meaningful response to the Syrian government’s actions.Response... Jordan Jennifer: footnote 44 of the 34 U. Pa. J. Int'l L. 431 (2013) article notes that Turkey, France, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, the U.K., and the U.S. had recognized the opposiiton as the legitimate leader of the Syrian people by the end of 2012. Kevin Jon Heller Jennifer, The only source you cite in defense of unilateral humanitarian intervention is the report issued by ICISS. But I fail to see...

...emerge when the institution in question is widely used rather than marginal. Response: What a horrendous state of affairs it would be if these military commissions (even in their third generation) were widely used, let alone used at all. Some still work to stop these conviction machines. See Flawed Justice for Terror Suspects, Toledo Blade, June 17, 2012 (http://www.toledoblade.com/Op-Ed-Columns/2012/06/17/Flawed-justice-for-terror-suspects.html) (ii) Any given institution will have many consequences, some of them opposed in their tendency. It is imperative, therefore, to look at their net effect. [I would add that we should...

...by the editors, and so forth. The journal may even have a policy never to publish such response pieces, while of course allowing for criticism of previously published work in separate, self-contained articles. Bad idea? Probably. Out of bounds? No, as there are plenty of other avenues of expressing legitimate disagreement. Similarly, with Lawfare, you can always write a post in response on OJ, I can write one on EJIL Talk, somebody else can create their own blog, use Facebook or whatever. I just don't see why you think that...