Search: Affective Justice: Book Symposium: A Response
12 Sep Libya and International Justice Symposium: The EU is Also Responsible for the Death of Migrants and Refugees in Libya
The European Union’s migration containment policy is trapping people in detention centres that are being targeted in the Libyan conflict. [Marwa Mohamed is Head of Advocacy and Outreach at Lawyers for Justice in Libya. LFJL’s #RoutestoJustice programme works to promote the rights of migrants and refugees in Libya and to provide them with access to justice using domestic courts, regional human rights courts and mechanisms and international human rights mechanisms and tribunals. This is the latest post in our symposium with Justice in Conflict on Libya and International Justice. Salah...05 May Jus Post Bellum Symposium: Jus Post Bellum–The Value of an Interpretive Conception
Greiff has argued measures that are weak in relation to the immensity of their task are more likely to be interpreted as justice initiatives if they help to ground a reasonable perception that their coordinated implementation is a multi-pronged effort to restore or establish anew the force of fundamental norms. Jus post bellum as integrity can recognise these mutually dependent conditions and constitutes a legitimate and coherent non-ideal conception of justice in the aftermath of war and conflict. The second reason relates to the effectiveness of a conception of justice...07 May Jus Post Bellum Symposium: Jus Post Bellum, Lex Pacificatoria, and Transitional Justice
capture what they feel they see going on in the interface of law and practice? As with any book, reading it comes together with other things you are reading and working on when you receive it. For my own part, the timing of the book, has come together with discussions we have been having in the Global Justice Academy, on Global Law, and Global Constitutional Law. Most recently, last Friday we debated the draft text of Neil Walker’s book on ‘Intimations of Global Law’ (forthcoming), where he examines the different...03 Jan H-Diplo Roundtable on David Bosco’s “Rough Justice”
H-Diplo, part of H-Net, recently hosted a virtual roundtable on David Bosco’s excellent book Rough Justice:The International Criminal Court in a World of Power Politics, published by Oxford last year. Erik Vroeten introduced the roundtable, and Sam Moyn, David Kaye, and I submitted reviews. David then wrote a response. Here is a snippet from Erik’s introduction: It is my pleasure to introduce the distinguished and diverse set of reviewers of this timely and important book. Samuel Moyn embeds Bosco’s book in a longer history of the tensions between power and...
27 Feb The Proposed Amendments to the International Health Regulations: An Analysis
...Ongoing Parallel Processes to Revise the IHR and Negotiate a New Treaty on Pandemic Preparedness and Response The first process ongoing at the WHO is the negotiation via the Intergovernmental Negotiation Body (INB) of a new treaty on pandemic preparedness and response. The most recent document issued by the INB on the 1 February 2023 is the Zero Draft of the WHO CA+. The second process is the revision of the existing international legal framework on health emergencies, preparedness and response, being the IHR. The work on the amendments is...11 Feb A Response to Maxine Burkett by Hari M. Osofsky
[Hari M. Osofsky is Associate Professor at Washington and Lee School of Law.] In Climate Reparations, Professor Maxine Burkett makes a compelling case for viewing climate justice problems though a reparative lens. She articulates thoughtfully the barriers to achieving meaningful justice under existing frameworks and proposals, as well as the profound ethical dilemmas posed by the inequities regarding emissions, impacts, and adaptation. Her article makes a helpful contribution to efforts to conceptualize climate justice by theorizing how a reparations model might apply to climate change, and then applying it to...27 Mar A Quick Response to Marty: Justice Stevens is a Foreign Affairs Federalist!
I wanted to jump in with a quick response to Marty’s awesome post about what is, without question, the most surprising (and for me, delightful) part of the Medellin opinion: Justice Stevens’ concurrence. I love this concurrence, especially because I am (to put it mildly) rarely fond of Justice Stevens’ forays into foreign relations law. This is, after all, the author of both Rasul and Hamdan. But give the Court’s senior justice his due: Justice Stevens seems to be genuinely constrained by his view of the law, and not his...27 Sep Online Workshop Response: Justice Scalia and the Majority
but on political branch authorization—the intent of the First Congress in enacting the ATS. The justices likewise agreed on the nature of that intent–that Congress wished to provide jurisdiction to support a limited set of general law claims based on the law of nations. As our Article reports, then, Justice Scalia and the majority see the same need for political branch authorization, unanimously endorsing (for this and other reasons) the revisionist view on issue a. Justice Scalia’s disagreement with the majority lies not with how to determine whether CIL may...