Search: Affective Justice: Book Symposium: A Response

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 on...

...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...

[Gregory Gordon is Professor of Law, University of North Dakota School of Law.] I would like to begin by thanking Opinio Juris for inviting us to have this important discussion here about the crime of direct and public incitement to commit genocide. I would also like to congratulate Susan Benesch on her excellent article regarding this verbal harbinger and prerequisite of mass atrocity. Professor Benesch provides a much needed exploration of the more complex facets of incitement that will afford jurists, advocates, and would-be offenders greater clarity in...

...study of nationalism. (See especially Chapter 5 of my book, THE PARADOXES OF NATIONALISM: THE FRENCH REVOLUTION AND ITS MEANING FOR CONTEMPORARY NATION BUILDING). My sense is that Susan talks about the sociological foundations of genocide because she wants to convince skeptical readers that criminalizing incitement should not be out of the question, even though it involves criminalizing speech. Susan points out that U.S. law criminalizes speech that is “likely to lead to imminent lawless action” (495). However, she finds this test too narrow in the context of genocide, because...

This is a wonderful opportunity to bring Islamic law into the legal debate in the United States beyond the superficial level at which it usually takes place. This is the more welcome for someone who has written a book on Muhammad Baqer as-Sadr as the most creative Islamic thinker of the 20th century (The Renewal of Islamic Law, Cambridge 1993), and now sees a second generation of Sadr scholars, like Professor Hamoudi, engaging seriously his work in American legal academia. In his article, Hamoudi uses Sadr’s work to show how...

First of all, welcome back! I always enjoy your contributions to OJ (and your scholarship generally), even when I disagree with you. So I hope you won’t think me too ungracious a host if I raise some (pointed) questions about your most recent post. I would be genuinely curious to hear your responses. I am, as I have pointed out ad nauseum, not an expert on international human rights law. So I’ll limit my comments to whether any of the actions you discuss would qualify either as genocide or as...

[Mark Drumbl is the Class of 1975 Alumni Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law.] Susan Benesch’s VJIL article is timely, thoughtful, and important. She insightfully sets out the catalytic relationship between hate propaganda and genocide. Her comparison of the methodological similarities between the Rwandan and Nazi German contexts is instructive. The mainstreaming of hate-mongering is a condition precedent for genocide to become truly massive. Consequently, if the criminal law could shut down hate-mongering before actual genocide – for example, by incapacitating the conflict entrepreneur...

applauded, the likelihood of swift justice from these efforts is low and the number of perpetrators who would be held accountable limited, leaving many direct perpetrators of conflict-related sexual violence outside of their reach. The likelihood of reparations to the untold number of victims is even less so. In our view, the preferable avenue for meaningful justice and reparations for Ukrainian victims of conflict-related sexual violence is through domestic legal systems, with the support and, as needed, pressure of the international community. And so the question is: what steps should...

I appreciate Mike taking the time to respond. I’ll address his various criticisms in separate posts; here I want to focus on the amicus brief’s claim (p. 14) that Sosa requires a norm applies in ATS litigation only if it has “undisputed international acceptance,” a standard that is satisfied only if (p. 7) “the defendant’s alleged conduct [is] universally recognized as a violation of international law.” Fortunately for ATS litigation, the “undisputed” standard is an invention of the amicus brief. The word “undisputed” does not appear in Sosa...

...4.0 highlights religious teachings from Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism that “echo concepts of human dignity.” It further identifies cultural relativism political interests and enforcement issues as “challenges and critiques.” Critique of the Responses The responses given in both versions closely resemble what my research students and I have observed in our study of textbooks and syllabi of introductory human rights courses, namely, that the origins and history of human rights are largely associated with Western historical events emanating from the Enlightenment and the American and French Revolutions. The content and...

Bobby Chesney has graciously responded at Lawfare to my post about detention in non-international armed confilct (NIAC). Unfortunately, I think Chesney’s response not only misconstrues what Steve Vladeck and I have been arguing, but also demonstrates some important misconceptions about IHL. To begin with, we need to understand exactly what we are arguing about. As Steve pointed out in one of his early posts, Sen. Lindsey Graham’s proposed “Terrorist Detention Review Reform Act would permit the government to detain without trial anyone who “has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against...

responses at the online blog by her and by Brad Roth. I have finally managed to get a response together, which is quite long and will run in three posts. The other responses are linked at the beginning of that post, as well. I have to thank publicly EJILTalk for running such a long response, which in many ways is practically a new essay – but especially Amrita Kapur and Brad Roth for reading so closely and with such nuance my original article. I’m very grateful to them for so...