Search: Affective Justice: Book Symposium: A Response
19 Aug Symposium on Informers Up Close: Informers in a Rearview Mirror – Impressions and Parallels from Drumbl and Holá’s Book
of trust. Parting Words Superbly researched and beautifully crafted, Drumbl and Holá’s book is a major event in the critical transitional justice scholarship. It must be widely read and will be unmissable for every transitional justice scholar and policy-maker. The book brushes against the grain of comfortable, reductive narratives which hold sway in most transitional societies, retelling secret service collaborators as a few ‘rotten apples’ to be excised from the healthy body of an otherwise innocent nation (the ‘evil traitors’ versus ‘heroic resisters’ binary). Drumbl and Holá deliver a nuanced...26 Jul International Law in the U.S. Supreme Court: The Antelope and Other Mysteries
will be directed to it as a first stop in getting their bearings. Judges may consult it. It is a very useful book. At a time when the Chief Justice of the United States complains that most legal scholarship is entirely irrelevant to practicing lawyers (echoing complaints by others), it is pleasing to have a genuinely useful book at which to point. Hurrah for useful and comprehensive academic books! At the same time, I must admit to feeling some frustration as I delved deeper into the book, a frustration that...
20 Jan Q&A: The Times and Temporalities of Human Rights
...the ECtHR, to what Julia Dehm refers to as the ‘temporal unfitness’ of environmental human rights to ‘deliver temporal justice in the face of temporally transgressive environmental harms’ (p. 45), and the ‘temporal myopia’ of jus cogens norms (Mary H Hansel, ch. 10), to take some examples discussed in the book. At the same time, key international human rights bodies rarely confront temporality in explicit terms. How do you hope the book’s foregrounding of temporality might influence such actors? KM: The book views human rights bodies and actors as regularly...19 Jun Berman Book Discussion: Beyond the Boundaries of Berman’s Global Legal Pluralism
brilliant and eloquent weaving of Berman’s various scholarly threads. While the book concludes in part that law is “messy,” the book’s argument is quite neat, tight, and logical. Berman addresses and redresses the dominant critiques lobbed at his work over the years, showcases agility with interdisciplinary research, and demonstrates the value of legal scholarship that does not end with heavy-handed prescriptions. Like all books of this breadth, there is room for critique. Instead, in this post, I offer some broader thoughts on ways to push Berman’s outstanding work beyond its...04 May Gary Solis Discusses New Book at ASIL
Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20008 Metro: Dupont Circle ASIL’s Lieber Society and the ICRC are sponsoring a discussion with ASIL member Gary D. Solis about his new book, The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law, published by ASIL Publishing Partner Cambridge University Press. ASIL hosts events such as this book discussion on an occasional basis as an informational service to bring experts on current international law topics together with those who have an interest in them. The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law introduces law students and...14 May NYU JILP Symposium: Response to the Commentary on Property Rights, Labor Rights and Democratization
have been about challenging injustices on a number of fronts, and historically so, to counteract the still persistent idea that they are comparatively passive or anti-legal. I look forward to the publication of Professor Pils book on human rights lawyers in China [Eva Pils, CHINA’S HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYERS: ADVOCACY AND RESISTANCE (forthcoming, 2014)], and also heartily recommend Rachel Stern’s recent book on Chinese environmental activism. [Rachel Stern, ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISM IN CHINA: A STUDY OF POLITICAL AMBIVALENCE (2013).] Further, Professor Pil’s citation of recent crack-downs on any form of Chinese activism...16 Mar Cheng Book Roundtable: When Should a Court Not Decide (A Response to Professor Brown)
I thank Professor Brown for his further application of the justificatory theory to the ICJ’s advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, another incident not covered in my book. I am glad he finds the justificatory theory useful in explaining the Court’s decision. As Professor Ku mentioned earlier this week, one test of the value of a theory is how well it explains the subject matter of the theory. Professor Brown also rightly points out that the Court caused some difficulties in the Nuclear...03 Sep Strategic Visions in Responding to Terror, and ‘Meta-Methodology’
I want to join the rest of Opinio Juris in welcoming Tom; I have read Confronting Global Terrorsm and American Neo-Conservatism with great interest and am looking forward to commenting on it. As befits someone who, on some definitions anyway, probably counts as a neo-con, I have some disagreements with the book – starting, unsurprisingly, with the definition of neoconservative and what it means (or meant). Before getting there, however, I want to start by praising what I think is a great strength of Tom’s book – and that is...29 Jul Push a Square Peg into a Round Hole, or Build Another Hole?
First, sincere thanks to the OpinioJuris team for inviting me to share my thoughts on Ben Wittes exceptional book; and thanks to Ben for such a well researched, well written, and provocative work. My initial reaction to the book was that Ben has hit the proverbial nail on the head in terms of defining the policy challenge surrounding how the United States should or must frame the response to the threat of transnational terrorism. More specifically, Ben clearly exposes how efforts to squeeze the response to this threat into existing...
04 Jul The Global Hawk Incident: Self-Defense against Aerial Incursions – Reflections on the Applicable Law
...force. For the sake of analysis, let’s assume that the Global Hawk did indeed enter Iranian airspace. That would, undoubtedly, constitute a violation of Iranian sovereignty. It could also amount to an unlawful use of force. However, as Michael Schmitt explained on Just Security, states are not permitted to use force in response to any breach of sovereignty, nor are states allowed to use force in response to every unlawful use of force. In the absence of U.N. Security Council authorization and except in cases of intervention by invitation, states...