Search: Affective Justice: Book Symposium: A Response
23 Jan A Response to David Landau by Mark Tushnet
[Mark Tushnet, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, responds to David Landau, The Reality of Social Rights Enforcement. This post is part of the Third Harvard International Law Journal/Opinio Juris Symposium.] David Landau’s article is an important contribution to a growing literature on the judicial role in enforcing social and economic rights. He joins others in noting that debate has ended over whether constitutions should include such rights and whether, if included, those rights should be judicially enforceable. (As does Landau, I put aside the U.S....16 May A Response to Rolf H Weber by Douglas W Arner and Ross P Buckley
As a general matter, we agree with Professor Weber’s comments, especially in relation to development and climate change. While we have not in this article focused on developmental aspects of the global financial architecture, in fact, we both view this as the fundamental goal.[1] Development however is not a simple objective and no single set of solutions to the development challenge has emerged. In the global economic architecture today, developmental issues are addressed through the Millennium Development Goals (‘MDGs’), a huge range of multilateral, domestic and non-governmental organizations...01 Aug Michael Lewis’ Response to Gabor Rona on Targeted Killing
[Michael W. Lewis is a Professor of Law at Ohio Northern University where he teaches International Law and the Law of War.] I want to thank Gabor for continuing a discussion started over on Lawfare a couple of weeks ago and to thank Opinio Juris for allowing me an opportunity to respond. As I had the last word on Lawfare I believe Gabor will be given the final word here. Gabor is correct that drones themselves are “stupid” in that they do not make any targeting decisions themselves....04 Feb A Response to Daniel Abebe and Jonathan Masur by Tom Ginsburg
[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...16 May A Response to Douglas W Arner and Ross P Buckley by Rolf H Weber
[Rolf H Weber is a Professor for Civil, Commercial and European Law at the University of Zurich Law School and a visiting Professor at the University of Hong Kong] The contribution of Professor Douglas W Arner and Professor Ross P Buckley is an important piece to the lively debate about the (new) architecture of the global financial system. The exposé is very thoughtful and enlightening, giving a historical outline of the attempts of regulators to prevent financial crises, with special focus on architectural aspects to be derived from...18 Oct Paust Response to Ochoa Article
...“state” (because I had the privilege of looking through some of the books from his personal collection and some notes that he wrote in some of the books – which were housed in the Judge Advocate General’s School in Charlottesville). It is enough to know that Oppenheim was wrong. Perhaps “readers” here can disclose other examples of treaties involving non”state” actors Christiana quotes the Martens clause (see Martens above) from the 1899 Hague Convention, which was mirrored in the 1907 Hague Convention No. IV (all around the time of Oppenheim’s...08 Dec A Response to Lea Brilmayer & Isaias Yemane Tesfalidet by Marko Milanovic
[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...
26 Jan Much Ado About Nothing
...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...17 Oct A Response: Sanchez-Llamas and the Value of ICJ Judgments
...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...