Search: Affective Justice: Book Symposium: A Response
10 Jul Worldviews, Grand Strategies, and Bumper-stickers
Thanks to everyone for what has been a very enriching discussion so far. I’d like to respond briefly to the thoughtful comments made by Peggy and Chris concerning what the story of these modern interwar years between 11/9 and 9/11 tells us about how to think about America’s role in the world – and whether that can be summed up in a simple phrase. It is quite right that, as we admitted at the outset, this book is in part an intellectual history of how Washington policymakers, politicians and intellectuals...
14 Nov Symposium on Erin Pobjie’s Prohibited Force: Reflections on the Utility of Erin Pobjie’s ‘Type Theory’ Approach to the Meaning of ‘Use of Force’
[James A. Green is Professor of Public International Law at the University of the West of England, Bristol, UK ,co-rapporteur of the International Law Association’s Use of Force Committee and a former editor-in-chief of the Journal on the Use of Force and International Law . His most recent book is Collective Self-Defence in International Law (CUP, 2024).] Pål Wrange once wrote that the meaning of prohibited ‘force’ was “the subject of controversy par excellence in international law.” The question of what exactly Article 2(4) UNC (and its customary international law...27 Mar PW Singer’s Wired for War Discussion at CTLab
Complex Terrain Laboratory, where several OJ people sometimes participate, is hosting an online discussion next week on PW Singer’s new book on robotics and war, Wired for War. We have mentioned this book in the past, and OJ has a number of posts on battlefield robotics in the last year or so. Singer is participating in the CTLab symposium and, having read his opening post, it looks to be fascinating. It is a terrific lineup of participants. That said, let me comment on why robotics is important to discussions here...23 Oct Book Symposium The Electronic Silk Road: New Trade Rules for Cross-Border Flows of Information?
...or individuals in (or even outside) their territory (e.g. a country forcing Facebook to hand over certain data or “spying” on data transferred over the internet). Are today’s WTO rules able to reign in these two types of government interventions with the toolbox of either rules on “trade in goods” or “trade in services”? Prof. Chander calls for two broad principles: technological neutrality and dematerialization, both basically stating that governments should, in principle, not make a distinction between trade that happens online (brick & mortar) and trade that happens offline....21 Nov What Makes (International) Law Law? Liam Murphy
[Rob Howse is the Lloyd C. Nelson Professor of International Law at NYU and is guest blogging this week here at Opinio Juris. His first post can be found here; his second, here and his third here.] Today at NYU law we are having a panel discussion, and celebration, of my colleague Liam Murphy’s recent book, What Makes Law Law? (I’ll be racing down from Fordham University, where I’m talking about my own book, Leo Strauss Man of Peace). Liam’s work is important for international legal scholars, because-despite many good...16 Mar Cheng Book Roundtable: Should ICJ Judgments Be Effective? (A Reply to Professor Cheng)
[Chester Brown is Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Sydney] Thanks to Professor Cheng for his thoughtful response. As a follow-up comment, this discussion should not conclude without mention of another hard case, being the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion in Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. In its advisory opinion of 8 July 1996, the ICJ (in)famously held that in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively...14 Mar Cheng Book Roundtable: Professor Howse Responds to Professor Cheng
[Robert Howse is the Lloyd C. Nelson Professor of International Law at NYU School of Law] When International Law Works is a wide-ranging work with many important and original claims and arguments. Particularly congenial is the approach that the real world effects of international law be examined not through narrow studies of rule “compliance” but in a manner that takes into account the importance of the moral meaning(s) of international law. Professor Cheng’s colleague Ruti Teitel and I have pleaded for such a broader approach-transcending the fact/value distinction...