Search: Affective Justice: Book Symposium: A Response

...the Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Israel  invoked the right to self-defence under the UN Charter and the provisions of UNSC Resolutions 1368 (2001) and 1373 (2001) issued in response to the attack on 9/11 in order to argue it had a right to defend itself against terrorist attacks waged by non-state actors. A quick reading of these resolutions will show, however, that they have not established new norms that extend...

...doubt there's going to be extradition, prosecution seems quite likely at this point. Who would we extradite them to, anyway? Was there an Afghani law broken on the subject? Liz That is the purpose of a status of forces agreement, Jordan. To protect our service members from an arbitrary justice system. The agreement will differ with respect to country depending on the nature of the justice system there (i wouldnt want to be subjected to the afghani justice system, would you?) and ensures that the constitutional rights of our soldiers...

...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...

[Dr Michelle Foster is an Associate Professor and Director of the International Refugee Law Research Programme in the Institute for International Law and the Humanities at the Melbourne Law School.] This post is part of the MJIL 13(1) Symposium. Other posts in this series can be found in the related posts below. Both Professor Crock and Professor Kneebone, in their respective contributions, raise interesting and important questions about state responsibility in the context of burden sharing/shifting schemes. Questions surrounding responsibility are vividly raised in the current scheme of transfer of...

...law. Blackstone’s commentary very clearly states that applying the law of nations to cases involving individuals creates domestic law. This is why I have argued that all “war crimes” adjudicated by military commissions prior to the 1949 Geneva Conventions were actually domestic, common law crimes, an approach maintained in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (and in the catch-all provision of the Military Commissions Act). My unpublished opinion is that their extraterritorial application to enemy foreign nationals is probably one of the earliest forms of the still-hotly-contested passive nationality jurisdiction....

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...

...Arc-style. David Landau responded to Mark Tushnet’s comments on his article “The Reality of Social Rights Enforcement” in a final installment of the Third Harvard International Law/Opinio Juris Symposium that took place earlier in the year. This week’s main event was our first symposium with the Leiden Journal of International Law, at the occasion of the Journal’s 25th birthday. The symposium kicked off with a discussion of two articles on the impact of the ICJ’s Nicaragua judgment, which also celebrated its 25th anniversary. The articles, by Lori Damrosch and Marcelo...

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...

...the US government had used the law for centuries to systematically persecute Black Americans and had committed unspeakable acts of violence against them. If that mistreatment differed from the Nazis’ mistreatment of Jews and other groups, it was a difference of intensity, not kind. To his lasting credit, Taylor eventually charged purely peacetime crimes against humanity in two of the 12 NMT cases. None of those charges were successful, but they led the Justice tribunal (albeit only in dicta) to affirm their legitimacy, paving the way for the modern nexus-less...

...oversimplified claims of the legal origins theoretical framework that underlines the DB project, in which economic progress is equated with common law regimes (seen as “flexible”) and economic backwardness is associated with civil law regimes (seen as “rigid”). Even more useful is Santos’ demonstration that by focusing only on formal written law, the DB indicators badly mischaracterize the labor law regimes they purport to describe. Many factors make the law “in action” depart from the “law on the books,” as legal sociologists have long known. Santos uses examples from Mexico...

on this blog here, on EJIL: Talk! here and OxHRH here). Whilst acknowledging that the majority of the derogations notified to the Council of Europe have now been withdrawn, the judges nevertheless expressed concerns over their usage. They remarked that ECHR derogations should not become commonplace and reaffirmed that they do not provide states with carte blanche to adopt any measures they wish in response to the pandemic. The ECtHR judges set down four general principles to be followed by states adopting measures in response to the pandemic: 1) Measures...

[Jennifer Trahan is a Clinical Professor at the NYU Center for Global Affairs.] Monday, at the Federalist Society, National Security Adviser John Bolton delivered a major foreign policy address, devoted almost entirely to attacking the International Criminal Court, a court established to prosecute the most egregious crimes of concern to the international community. At a time when the US does indeed face many national security challenges, including North Korean nuclear weapons development, the topic was in itself an odd choice, but consistent with Bolton’s earlier preoccupation with the...