Search: Affective Justice: Book Symposium: A Response

17 Jul Political Science Fiction

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...

31 Jan Competition and Control in International Adjudication: A Response

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...

02 Aug Opinio Juris Symposium: Thoughts in Response to Professors Spiro and Ku

Peter Spiro Mike, Thanks for the response. All points well taken. I don't for a minute mean to imply that this isn't a worthwhile project. The fact that others clearly see value in historical textualism alone makes your book an important one, and it's interesting history to boot. Nor would I argue that text and its historical meaning is completely irrelevant in confronting contemporary controversies. But I would discount it pretty steeply. Only where founding materials work to establish a norm's pedigree do I think it serves much purpose. Any...

27 Jul International Law in the U.S. Supreme Court: A Brief Response to Professor Kent

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...

09 Jun A Response to Paul Dean

...to property. CarrieLyn Guymon Response... The ECJ's decision in Kadi is interesting, but it did leave in place the asset freeze, providing an opportunity for the sanctions to be maintained so long as some additional post-hoc process is afforded. My article recommends that the US also provide more information regarding the basis for designations under E.O. 13,382. The ECJ agrees that this need not be done in advance nor should it jeopardize the need to protect classified information. I think that the process in the EU can be tweaked slightly...

24 May Islamic Law and Progressive Politics

...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...

08 Dec A Response to Justine Nolan by Odette Murray, David Kinley and Chip Pitts

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...