In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Search: Affective Justice: Book Symposium: A Response

29 Sep

As a pastor of a church I find Professor Guiora’s words both challenging and problematic. Here are four points: 1. Professor Guiora writes, “Society has historically – unjustifiably and blindly – granted religion immunity.” What society? Separating “society” from “religion” is very much a modern issue. Society didn’t grant immunity to anything. Rather, society was shaped by religion and was pretty much identified religiously in the West and in the East until the beginnings of the critical/historical/scientific “Age of Reason” stirrings. In the West it was the Church...
29.09.10 | |

08 Dec

[Marko Milanovic is a Lecturer in Law at the University of Nottingham School of Law.] In their timely article Brilmayer and Tesfalidet address an important issue of general international law – when should states bear obligations to either put an end to or not contribute to violations of international law by other states, even when the obligation in question is not owed to them specifically. They challenge the orthodox view that by and large it is not any one state’s business whether third states comply with their obligations...
08.12.11 | |

26 Jan

...international law scholars are discussing in these days and how all of this is evidence that a Tallinn Manual 3.0 is needed, but will not give any definitive answer to the issues that still involve international (cyber) law. The politicians The Hill published an interesting article that summarizes some first responses by US politicians to this act. It is striking as their positions do no align with past actions conducted by the US Government in cyberspace and do not reflect international law. Sen. Dick Durbin’s statement that “[t]his is virtually...
26.01.21 | |

17 Oct

...obligation. (The President’s memorandum may do so, but I don’t understand Roger to be asking about that). You have to interpret treaties, like contracts, fairly and consistently with the background assumptions of the parties, and neither the Optional Protocol nor the UN Charter indicates that states were contemplating domestic-court enforcement when they signed on. Contrast, for example, the New York Convention on international commercial arbitration, which clearly contemplates domestic judicial enforcement of international arbitral awards. Second, on Justice Ginsburg’s “middle way,” I don’t read her dissent quite the way Roger...
17.10.07 | |

03 Jul

...mere minutes to evacuate especially when they have no sense where safety might be. I think this would hold true irrespective of the parties involved. Moreover, the report points equally to violations of the other side, but seemingly with regard to these there is never any controversy. Palestinian authorities don't provide credible accountability, the strikes against civilians are pervasive, the whole findings section starts with these. P.S. The link to Israeli authors book is pointing to your own computer, Kevin, and thus is not working. Akiva Kevin, A few points....
03.07.15 | |

13 Apr

...and transform it into an issue of human welfare and dignity. Finally, I agree with Peter that the questions of how norms should be harmonized and what process will be most successful in achieving this goal are crucial. The answer to these questions will depend on the context, and this points to a need for further empirical research into how norms of access and exclusivity have been translated into domestic law. My thanks again to Peter, Opinio Juris, and YJIL for this online symposium. I welcome further comments at molly.beutz@nyls.edu....
13.04.09 | |

13 Apr

Let me begin by thanking Opinio Juris and the Yale International Law Journal for hosting this online symposium. In “Protecting Rights Online,” Professor Molly Beutz Land has written a highly interesting article that seeks to bridge the disciplinary and doctrinal divide between the human rights and access to knowledge (A2K) movements. The article is well-written, accessible and provocative. It has made an important contribution to the debate about issues lying at the intersection of human rights and global information governance. It is particularly refreshing to find Molly staying away from...
13.04.09 | |

09 Dec

...of non-international armed conflict, it seems plausible that Al Warafi could refute his detention under international humanitarian law. Although the Court had correctly ruled that Article 24 did not apply, it did so on misguided grounds. In Al Warafi’s case, Article 24 was inapplicable because the conflict was not of a nature to trigger its application, nor was the petitioner a proper subject of this provision. Although Justice Brown identifies common Article 3 at the appropriate framework for considering the legality of Al Warafi’s detention in his concurring opinion for...
09.12.14 | |

04 Feb

[Tom Ginsburg is a Professor at the University of Chicago Law School] Thanks for this opportunity to respond to the Article by Professors Abebe and Masur. My learned colleagues are certainly correct that, notwithstanding its status as a unitary and authoritarian state, China is an internally complicated place, with substantial de facto control at the provincial level. Besides the East-West cleavages that Professors Abebe and Masur focus on, there are other internal tensions among different levels of government, different governmental agencies at each level, and different ideological groups...
04.02.10 | |

08 Dec

[Chiara Giorgetti is an Adjunct Professor at Georgetown Law Center and a member of the International Arbitration Group at the Washington, D.C. office of White & Case.] I am very pleased to join this discussion on Professor Lea Brilmayer and Isaias Yemane Tesfalidet’s upcoming article on third State obligations and the enforcement of international law. In their article, Brilmayer and Tesfalidet argue that States have a positive obligation not to contribute to another State’s violation of a victim’s legal rights, and propose that liability is triggered only when...
08.12.11 | |

07 Jul

I am very pleased to be able to comment on Ingrid Wuerth’s recent article, Foreign Official Immunity Determinations in U.S. Courts: The Case Against the State Department. As readers of this blog are aware, the Supreme Court held in Samantar v. Yousuf that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) generally does not apply to suits against individual foreign officials, and that the immunity of such officials is to be determined instead as a matter of common law. The Executive Branch is now claiming (as it claimed before Samantar)...
07.07.11 | |

11 Feb

...strictly speaking, be a loss of a state’s reputation for compliance with international law, but it might nevertheless be a costly loss of reputation for cooperation. This certainly seems to be what has happened to the United States with respect to both the ICC and the Kyoto Protocol. So as you suggest, Roger, there is a close connection between accepting an international legal obligation and complying with it. My book does discuss how joining a treaty can help a country to gain reputation, and how the presence of a treaty...
11.02.08 | |