Search: Affective Justice: Book Symposium: A Response
27 Jan Activating the Crime of Aggression: A Response to Stürchler
Nikolas Stürchler, the Head of International Humanitarian Law and International Criminal Justice Section at the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, has a new post at EJIL: Talk! discussing the ASP’s decision to completely exclude states parties from the crime of aggression unless they ratify the aggression amendments — the “opt-in” position advocated by a number of states, most notably the UK, Japan, and Canada. The post is very long and quite technical, so I won’t try to summarise it. Basically, Stürchler argues that the judges are still free to...16 Apr Defense Perspectives on Law and Politics in International Criminal Trials — A Response
...to have an opportunity to positively influence the development of legal doctrine. It is impossible to do justice to Jenia’s essay in this short reply. I will thus limit myself to pointing out a few of her more remarkable findings. I was very surprised, for example, by how many of the defense attorneys she surveyed believe that “creating an accurate historical record” is one of the most important goals of international criminal trials – 17 out of 44, only eight fewer than the number of defense attorneys who believe that...01 Mar YJIL Online Symposium: A Response to A. Arend and L. Johnson
It’s an honor to have two so distinguished scholars comment on my article. As always, I learn from reading their commentary and I thank each for his insights. Two quick reactions. First, Professor Johnson raises an interesting semantic question (which I do not address in the article): If a state “unsigns” a treaty, is it still a signatory? Professor Johnson is surely correct that a state cannot re-write history by purporting to expunge its signature as a matter of official record. Further, liability that a state incurs...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...22 Mar IHL Does Not Authorise Detention in NIAC: A Response to Murray
Over the past couple of years, a number of scholars — including me — have debated whether IHL implicitly authorises detention in non-international armed conflict (NIAC.) The latest important intervention in the debate comes courtesy of Daragh Murray in the Leiden Journal of International Law. As the article’s abstract makes clear, Murray is firmly in the “IHL authorises” camp: On the basis of current understandings of international law – and the prohibition of arbitrary detention in particular – it is concluded that international humanitarian law must be interpreted...23 Jul AJIL Symposium: Sadat response to Robinson and van Sliedregt
...about ethnocentricity. He noted it when I first work-shopped the paper a couple of years earlier, and made me rethink my own position about crimes against humanity, and focus upon World War II and particularly the Nuremberg precedent. While the horror of the holocaust will never leave us, it is undoubtedly important to understand the terrible suffering of today’s victims of atrocity crimes and not to minimize their sufferings or their claims to justice. Today’s ICC owes much to the Nuremberg (and Tokyo) precedents; but its establishment, mission and mandate...