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....
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...05 Sep The ICTR’s Response to Gakwaya’s Arrest
Following up on my earlier post, the ICTR isn’t happy that Tanzanian police have arrested Gakwaya. The Tribunal’s Registrar has released the following statement: Following the arrest of Defence Counsel Callixte Gakwaya, Lead Counsel for the accused Yusuf Munyakasi, on Friday 1 September 2006, the Registrar of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), Mr Adama Dieng, expressed his strong concern to the Tanzanian authorities and requested clarification of the reasons for the arrest. Mr Dieng notes that the Tribunal did not receive any prior notice of the...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...
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...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...17 Jun Response from Kontorovich on Foreign and International Sources
...mankind requires that they declare the causes” of their revolution. Securing the “international law” benefits could be done by a simple pronouncement of independence; convincing others that we were serious about it required a recitation of unpardonable sins of Britain. Professor McGuinness suggests that the Founder’s selective definition of “mankind” – basically, France and Spain – undermines my argument that one of the dangers of using foreign law is that judges will use it selectively. What’s wrong with the Justices looking only to the laws of our “friends” to gain...
06 Apr When International Law Fails to Protect: Humanitarian Intervention and the Iranian Repression
...Court of Justice has also affirmed, in its judgment in the Nicaragua v. United States (Paras 188-190) case, that the prohibition on the use of force reflected in Article 2(4) constitutes a rule of customary international law binding on all states. The Charter provides only two recognized exceptions: the inherent right of self-defense under Article 51 in response to an armed attack, and the use of force authorized by the Security Council under Chapter VII. Internal repression, however grave or systematic, does not ordinarily qualify as an armed attack against...