Search: Affective Justice: Book Symposium: A Response

[Tai-Heng Cheng is the international disputes partner of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP in New York. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of his firm or its clients.] Congratulations are due to the authors of Informal International Lawmaking, and especially to the editors, Professors Pauwelyn, Wesssel and Wouters, for their keen observations and appraisals of the global decisionmaking processes as they operate today. Opinio Juris has assigned me the task of commentating on the legal and normative nature of international decisionmaking processes that the authors...

[Jan Wouters is Professor of International Law and International Organizations, Jean Monnet Chair Ad Personam EU and Global Governance, and Director of the Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies and Institute for International Law at the University of Leuven (KU Leuven).] Once we conclude that IN-LAW is not devoid of impact and cannot be ignored as a normative process, the question of the accountability of the involved actors, processes, and output may be raised. This question is addressed in Part IV. Eyal Benvenisti (Chapter 13) ‒ one of...

...Law’s Main Challenges” in D Armstrong (ed), Routledge Handbook of International Law (Routledge 2009) at 404. Schachter’s “invisible college” of international lawyers seems to have largely disappeared and has been replaced by a patchwork quilt of specialized international lawyers. Diverse interpretive communities have come to play an increasingly important role in treaty interpretation. This development raises concerns about the unity of international law, not just in relation to its interpretive methods, but also in relation the system as a whole. The challenge going forward is how to achieve a reasonable...

[Julian Arato is an Associate-in-Law at Columbia Law School.] Interpretation in International Law is something of an iconoclastic volume, from its critical ethos to its provocative structure around the metaphor of the game. The object of its revisionism, above all, is an apparently stagnant formalism that seems too prevalent in the theory and practice of interpretation in international law today. Symbolic of this antiquated formalism – for the editors and for many of the contributors – are the rules of interpretation embedded in the Vienna Convention on the...

Thanks to Roger Alford, Matt Waxman, Ken Anderson, Chris Borgen, and Peggy McGuiness for their interesting posts today. I wanted to respond to Roger’s very astute observation about 1993. We do write about the disaster on the national security side, but as he notes, Clinton also got NAFTA passed that year, which was a major achievement. It was really striking to us as we did the research for the book the difference between Clinton on economics and Clinton on national security in that first year. He was so confident of...

...the U.S. taking liberties with the principle of distinction will cause the next Srebrenica or that better U.S. targeting behavior will prevent it. But if the US is, indeed, the indispensable nation for promotion of international human rights, then just consider how Abu Ghraib and enhanced interrogation techniques affected the ability of the U.S. to complain about torture elsewhere and how that disability affects the will and ability of the international community to bring torturers to justice. Finally, Mike makes an interesting point in speculating that what people really object...

...In September 2018, Pence even brought it up when he visited el-Sisi. In response, el-Sisi promised to give the matter “serious attention.” Egyptian authorities assured Kassem and the US that Kassem would be freed if he renounced his Egyptian citizenship. In response, Kassem filed papers to terminate his Egyptian citizenship. Yet Egyptian authorities seemingly ignored Kassem’s documents and nothing changed for Kassem. After six months, Kassem became disillusioned with any hope for freedom and began a hunger strike, which inflamed his diabetic condition and caused him to die. Is Egypt...

...to reinforce the argument of Tams and Devaney concerning the relationship between geography and self-defense actions against irregular forces. By way of contrast, several examples can be found during the UN era where a state condemned the remoteness of the response taken in self-defense against both state and non-state actors. For example, when the US claimed that its 1986 aerial bombing of Libyan territory had been validly undertaken in response to imminent attacks from Libyan-sponsored terrorists (UN SCOR, 2674th mtg, UN Doc S/PV.2674 (15 April 1986); Stanimir A. Alexandrov, Self-Defense...

...two tribunals that Jacob identifies as immune from competition and therefore at risk of “market failure.” (pp.444-45) The recently-concluded Treaty of Lisbon delegates new powers to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to interpret the now legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as well as EU criminal justice agreements. A similar trend is underway in the European human rights regime. Until 1998, the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) was optional. That changed with the ratification of Protocol 11, which made jurisdiction compulsory....

a state of disaster, while Eswatini declared a state of emergency. Despite these differences in approach, COVID-19 response measures implemented by both countries are legally required to comply with the above described standards of necessity and proportionality. As part of their COVID-19 response measures, both Eswatini and Zimbabwe enacted regulations which restricted freedom of expression by criminalising the spreading of false information. In Eswatini, the regulations criminalised the “[spreading] of any rumour or unauthenticated information regarding COVID-19” and spreading “any rumour or unauthentic information regarding any measure taken by the...

of non-self-executing treaties was relevant only to Chief Justice Marshall and one other Justice, and that was because these two Justices construed Article 8 to require the United States to recognize these grants as if the land had in fact belonged to Spain between 1803 and 1819. These two Justices were inclined to accept such a construction because a declaration was appended to the treaty specifying that, notwithstanding Article 8, three specified grants did not need to be recognized. One of these three specifically excluded grants lay in territory that,...

The recent article by Burke-White and von Staden raises critical and timely issues about international economic law and treaty interpretation. The paper acknowledges challenges posed to the institutional legitimacy of investment treaty dispute resolution (which I have written about elsewhere) that are caused by different tribunals coming to different interpretations of the same or similar treaty provisions. It also considers the difficulties for international law when tribunals interpret treaty provisions in a manner that negates agreed areas of state responsibility and instead shifts to an analysis based...