Search: Affective Justice: Book Symposium: A Response
16 Nov MJIL Symposium: A Response to Mary Crock and Susan Kneebone by Michelle Foster
[Dr Michelle Foster is an Associate Professor and Director of the International Refugee Law Research Programme in the Institute for International Law and the Humanities at the Melbourne Law School.] This post is part of the MJIL 13(1) Symposium. Other posts in this series can be found in the related posts below. Both Professor Crock and Professor Kneebone, in their respective contributions, raise interesting and important questions about state responsibility in the context of burden sharing/shifting schemes. Questions surrounding responsibility are vividly raised in the current scheme of transfer of...
25 Nov Misreading Human Rights Due Diligence: A Response to Tara Van Ho
[Anne Herzberg is the Legal Advisor of NGO Monitor and the UN Representative for the Institute for NGO Research.] On November 2, 2021, Tara Van Ho, Senior Lecturer at Essex University, posted “The Unexpected Trade and Business Implications of Israel’s Attack on Al Haq” at Opinio Juris. In the piece, Van Ho condemns Israel’s designation of six Palestinian NGOs for their alleged affiliations with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), in particular the designation of Palestinian NGO Al Haq, which she characterizes as the...10 Apr Response to The Cost of Conflation: Preserving the Dualism of Jus ad Bellum and the Jus in Bello in the Contemporary Law of War.
Thanks to the editors of Yale Journal of International Law and the hosts of Opinio Juris for the opportunity to comment on Rob Sloane’s terrific article, The Cost of Conflation: Preserving the Dualism of Jus ad Bellum and the Jus in Bello in the Contemporary Law of War. The piece is, in my view, essential reading for law of war scholars. I find myself in broad agreement with much of Sloane’s analysis so in my necessarily brief comments I offer a series of questions aimed at clarifying or...27 Feb A Response to Kontorovich and Gallagher About Piracy (Updated)
...League of Nations report and the Harvard commentary during the drafting of what would become the High Seas Convention’s definition of piracy. To her credit, Maggie acknowledges (in the article in the Journal of International Criminal Justice she mentions in her comment) that the Harvard commentary does not limit the “exception” to piracy to recognized belligerencies. But she misunderstands the nature of belligerent recognition (emphasis mine): The commentary to the Harvard Draft suggests the ‘private ends’ requirement was originally intended to exclude from the definition of piracy only the acts...11 Oct A Response to Kevin Heller (Part 2)
In a prior post, I responded to some of Kevin Heller’s criticism of the professors’ amicus brief recently filed in the Nestle ATS case. Specifically, that post addressed issues arising from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Here I’ll take up Kevin’s criticism based on rulings of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). To frame the argument, it’s important to emphasize that, as Julian Ku noted earlier, the brief does not see the ICTY as a primary source of customary international law. Customary...
20 Dec On Forcing Civilians to Remain in Hostile Zones: The Prohibition of Shielding and the Corresponding Obligations of an Attacking Party Under International Humanitarian Law
[Chris McQuade is a Senior Teaching Fellow in Law at the University of Portsmouth. He holds a PhD in International Law from the University of Sussex and researches in the fields of public international law, international humanitarian law and international and domestic human rights law.] In response to the October 7 attack by Hamas, the Israeli army has engaged in an intense military campaign in the Gaza strip over the past three months. As the campaign has escalated in its ferocity, so too has criticism of the Israeli response (among...24 Jan A Response to Kevin Jon Heller by Carsten Stahn
view.. (iv) ‘Higher sentence’ – ‘better justice’ Finally, Heller’s theory operates on the critical assumption that a justice system based on ‘higher sentences’ provides better and more efficient justice than a system with potentially lower sentences. This vision appears to go against the very rationales of sentencing which typically preserves a great degree of flexibility in order to pay adequate tribute to individual interests. It is further ill-suited to provide an appropriate logic for forum choices in situations in which sentence and penalties may be of lesser importance, such as...03 Jul A Response to David Zaring
...training in the law school context. Some law schools, such as Berkeley, Cornell, Harvard, Illinois, Leiden University, Northwestern, Penn, Stanford, University of Chicago, Vanderbilt, Washington University, and Yale have classes related to the empirical methods and the law (and apologies for the lack of a complete list in this regard for other law schools with separate courses focused on empirical methods). A casebook with an accessible teacher’s manual, such as the one being developed by faculty at the University of Illinois, goes a long way to filling this particular gap...22 Feb Israel Does Not Have a Sovereign Claim to the West Bank: A Response to IJL’s Legal Opinion
Jonathan Turner Many of the points made in this post were addressed in the Statement submitted by ELNET and UKLFI to the ICJ under Practice Direction 12, particularly at paras 36-74: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/engprq05vstavki5829h9/ELNET-Submission-to-ICJ-29-9-23-final.pdf?rlkey=sihxdzppww1wrw6i9ac2ptqlh&dl=0 Tamás Hoffmann I mostly agree with the analysis, but I have one minor correction. I think that the reference to Hungary is not really appropriate. Unfortunately I haven't read Wheatley's book yet but this short allusion to Hungary's statehood during the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy misses a crucial point: it was a monarchy, to be more precise, an Empire where...11 Feb A Response to Robert Ahdieh by Eric A. Posner
[Eric A. Posner, co-author of Universal Exceptionalism in International Law with Anu Bradford, responds to Robert Ahdieh] I am grateful for Professor Ahdieh’s illuminating comments on my paper with Anu Bradford. Ahdieh offers three interpretations of the charge of U.S. exceptionalism: Degreeism: The United States does not always win, but it wins more often than Europe and China do. Exceptionalism is a matter of degree, but it still exists. I don’t think that the traditional notion of American exceptionalism permits this interpretation, but it is possible that people...