Search: Affective Justice: Book Symposium: A Response

...“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...

[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...

...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...

...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...

...mere minutes to evacuate especially when they have no sense where safety might be. I think this would hold true irrespective of the parties involved. Moreover, the report points equally to violations of the other side, but seemingly with regard to these there is never any controversy. Palestinian authorities don't provide credible accountability, the strikes against civilians are pervasive, the whole findings section starts with these. P.S. The link to Israeli authors book is pointing to your own computer, Kevin, and thus is not working. Akiva Kevin, A few points....

...and transform it into an issue of human welfare and dignity. Finally, I agree with Peter that the questions of how norms should be harmonized and what process will be most successful in achieving this goal are crucial. The answer to these questions will depend on the context, and this points to a need for further empirical research into how norms of access and exclusivity have been translated into domestic law. My thanks again to Peter, Opinio Juris, and YJIL for this online symposium. I welcome further comments at molly.beutz@nyls.edu....

I am very grateful to Oliver Gerstenberg for commenting on my paper. As always, Oliver’s illuminating comments go to the heart of the matter. His defense of a minimalist approach to the ECJ offers an alternative to the presumably “maximalist” proposal I defend in my article. I accept this label for the purpose of our exchange. At one level, Oliver worries about the implications of a “politicized” Court whose members disagree sharply and publicly about matters of great consequence to the future of Europe and its citizens....

[Mary Crock is Professor of Public Law at the University of Sydney] This post is part of the MJIL 13(1) Symposium. Other posts in this series can be found in the related posts below. Although Australia identifies as a member of the United Nation’s ‘Western European and Others’ Group (‘WEOG’), it has now enacted laws that place it much more comfortably as an Asian nation. Unlike the WEOG countries, few Asian nations are party to the Refugee Convention (‘Convention’), or to any of the major human rights conventions other than...

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...

...international institutions in the Asia-Pacific, calls are being made for global responses to the virus to disaggregate the data related to outbreaks based on sex, age and disability in order to understand the ‘gendered differences in exposure and treatment and to design differential preventive measures’. In keeping with the Inter-Agency Standing Committee’s (IASC) tool, this would seem to re-inscribe existing gendered norms onto any approach to the pandemic and may entrench gendered stereotypes in our response. While there is undoubtedly some merit in collating this data, it falls short of...

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...

[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...