Search: Affective Justice: Book Symposium: A Response
27 Apr “No Neutral Men”: Sharma’s Reductionist Response to My Post
But they are non-neutral in favour of international justice, not impunity for the state in which they happened to be born. In fact, there is reason to believe — and this was the basic point of my post, which Sharma ignores — that individuals from the P-3 may be uniquely well-suited to investigating crimes committed by their home states, given their familiarity with the political, economic, and social structures therein. After all, one of the most compelling criticisms of the ICC’s “distant justice” is that OTP investigations, in Africa and...02 Feb A Response to Guy Mundlak
I would first like to thank Professor Guy Mundlak for generously taking the time to respond to my Article, and Opinio Juris for hosting this forum. Professor Mundlak is very correct to note that over time civil liberties and socioeconomic matters have become more intertwined. What’s more, the overlapping identities and realms in which workers function mean that to be protected and empowered in the sphere of work, they must also be protected in other spheres of human functioning. The same holds true in the inverse. Accordingly, the...02 Feb The right to Have Power and the Power to Have Rights: A Response to Kevin Kolben by Guy Mundlak
[Guy Mundlak is a Professor at Tel Aviv University Buchmann School of Law] I opted for law school because I wanted to take part in the practice of human rights. Several years later I found myself deeply engrossed in the study of labor law. At the time, Israel was still considered to be strongly collective, solidary, and densely covered by collective agreements. Being organized was not a contested topic. However, the rights of Palestinians, minorities and identity groups were considered to be fragile. Over time, I learned that...24 Nov First Strikes & NIAC: Thoughts on the Haque/Horowitz Debate
...hostilities. I see no convincing response to this criticism. It is tempting to argue that the organization requirement is important because a first-strike military operation against an organized armed group is much more likely to lead to actual hostilities than a first-strike military operation against an unorganized armed group. But Adil rejects the idea that hostilities are relevant to the application of IHL. He believes IHL should apply even if a first-strike military operation meets with no response whatsoever. Another potential response would be to argue that first-strike military operations...
28 Oct Winter is [Not] Coming: Game of Thrones as an Allegory for Climate Change & International Politics
...Game of Thrones functions as a powerful tool to demonstrate multiple facets of lacking climate action—from the repeated defeat and disillusionment experienced by those seeking to rally a collective response, to the surge of hope following an agreement to act, to the decision of certain nefarious actors to deliberately feign their cooperation and seek to manipulate the responses others for their own material benefit. There is further power in this mode of portraying themes surrounding collective action in a Sci-Fi television series that is so thoroughly apolitical, because it creates...14 Oct Guest Post: Air Strikes in Syria–Questions Surrounding the Necessity and Proportionality Requirements in the Exercise of Self-Defense
...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...25 Jan A Response to David Sloss by Carlos Vázquez
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,...