Search: Affective Justice: Book Symposium: A Response
16 Jan The Role of the State Department: Response to Posner
...international reaction, with the immediate adverse consequences for our conduct of foreign policy. It will undermine public support among critical allies, making military cooperation more difficult to sustain. Europeans and others will likely have legal problems with extradition or other forms of cooperation in law enforcement, including in bringing terrorists to justice. It’s hard to be more prescient than that. Eric is of course right that personalities and closeness to the President (or, importantly in this administration, the Vice President) can affect who wins or loses the policy fight. But...
21 Nov The ICC Independent Expert Review – A Response to Prof. Guilfoyle’s Post on Questions of Trust and Tenure
...limits and take note of their responsibilities towards staff. It is my personal view that the landscape of international criminal justice institutions, the closing of institutions and poor coordination between them is largely to blame for the issues before the ICC that have been highlighted by Professor Guilfoyle and the IER. I am certain that creating more opportunities is a better route forward than cutting staff benefits and undermining job security. This approach reflects fairness to them and to their years of dedication to the field, and it provides institutional...21 Dec LJIL Symposium: Response to Samantha Besson
Alexander Panayotov I agree with the argument that extraterritorial regulation creates a danger of democratic deficit. Prof. Ryngaert tackles this argument in details in his superb book “Jurisdiction in International Law” (pp.188-190). This is one of the aspects of normative theorizing about extraterritoriality that is worth debating. What I see as a problem, however, is the fact that democracy in itself is an essentially contested concept. There are several theories of democracy: participatory, minimalist, and deliberative to begin with. If we make a claim about extraterritorial regulation’s effect on democratic...29 Jan A Response to Professor Ochoa
I’m grateful to Professor Ochoa for her thoughtful contribution. By way of reply to her post, I want to mention a couple of issues that I think are difficult puzzles for those of us who write in this area. First, I particularly like Professor Ochoa’s suggestion that I include information about corruption and governance when assessing whether a SWF should be permitted to invest abroad. Doing this would help sharpen my point nicely. This comment—and the weakness in my paper that the comment helps to address—shows the problem...05 Mar International Law vs. Donald Trump: A Reply
[Harold Hongju Koh is Sterling Professor of International Law at Yale Law School. This post is a response to the recent Trump Administration and International Law Symposium hosted on Opinio Juris.] Can international law save itself from Donald Trump? Since Election Night 2016, that question has haunted me across many issue areas. Professor Craig Martin and the Washburn Law Journal editors generously invited me to offer an initial answer in their recently published symposium issue in an article entitled “The Trump Administration and International Law.” As I prepare my book-length...20 Dec LJIL Symposium: Genocide and Discrimination: A Response
...both case law and scholarly discussion, including this online symposium of the Leiden Journal of International Law, have shown that this is, indeed, not the case. Two main reasons could be identified underlying the different positions: (1) the one relates to the dimension one focuses on in the definition of genocide and the conceptualization of the relationship between the two dimensions, and (2) the other concerns the question of interpretation and the role of the judiciary. Dimensions of genocide The definition of genocide, arguably, has two dimensions: the ‘collective’ and...15 Apr A Response to John Coyle by Ingrid Wuerth
[Ingrid Wuerth is a Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University Law School] This Article by John Coyle focuses on U.S. statutes that incorporate treaties into domestic law. As John defines them, incorporative statutes may include implementing legislation for non-self executing treaties, statutes that facilitate the implementation of self-executing treaties, or congressional executive agreements; the key question is whether they give effect to an international agreement. Unlike treaties or the Alien Tort Statute, incorporative statutes do not present obvious constitutional questions, and they have received relatively little attention from...07 Dec A Response to Christian De Vos by Gideon Boas
[Gideon Boas is an Associate Professor in the Monash Law School and a former Senior Legal Officer at the ICTY.] This article deals carefully with the Lubanga proceedings before the ICC, and in particular the difficulty caused by the Prosecution collecting information through the extensive use of confidentiality agreements under Article 54(3)(e) of the Rome Statute. One of the great difficulties confronting prosecutors in international war crimes trials is the collection of reliable evidence with which to build their cases and to secure conviction. Such investigations invariably occur...
04 Feb International Economic Law Symposium: Emerging Powers, Global Justice and International Economic Law
well considered decision. Although India is increasingly an exporter of capital, in the near term, India is likely attract more investor disputes against it. In addition, as Buser notes in his book, most of the signatories to the BITs did not consider these treaties as ‘hard’ legal instruments capable of enforcement and consequent monetary damages. Once they realised the perils of being parties to the investment treaties, their response was predictable to an extent. It is sound way to analyse the rising powers in four typologies – loyalists; reformers; revolutionaries;...18 Nov LJIL Symposium: A Response to Professor Gabby Blum and Professor Chris Kutz
[Dr. Janina Dill is a Hedley Bull Fellow at the Department of Politics and International Relations and Research Fellow in Politics at Merton College, Oxford] I am very grateful to Gabby Blum and Chris Kutz for their thoughtful comments on my paper. We agree on the fundamental challenge: killing combatants in accordance with the principle of distinction under International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is morally problematic. In my paper I engage the preferred remedy of a growing number of philosophers, which is to distinguish between individuals who are liable...