Search: Affective Justice: Book Symposium: A Response
19 May Symposium: Janelle Diller’s Response to Robert McCorquodale
[Janelle Diller is Paul Martin Sr. Professor of International Affairs and Law at the University of Windsor Faculty of Law (Canada), on leave from the International Labour Organization (ILO). Her views do not necessarily reflect the ILO’s positions.This is the fourth post in the Defining the Rule of Law Symposium, based on this article (free access for six months). The first is here, the second, here, the third here and the fourth here.]] By insisting on clarity in approaching the “rule of law” at the international level. Robert McCorquodale significantly...15 Nov MJIL Symposium: A Response to James Stewart by Darryl Robinson
[Darryl Robinson is an Assistant Professor at Queen’s University, Faculty of Law] This post is part of the MJIL 13(1) symposium. Other posts in this series can be found in the related posts below. I am very grateful for James Stewart’s comments on “How Command Responsibility Got So Complicated”. Professor Stewart and I are engaged in similar projects (criminal law theory and international criminal law (‘ICL’)) and immersed in similar literature, so our discussions are always very helpful to me, even though we at times reach different conclusions. Professor Stewart...15 Nov MJIL Symposium: A Response to Darryl Robinson by Jens Ohlin
[Jens David Ohlin is an Associate Professor of Law at Cornell Law School; he blogs at LieberCode.] This post is part of the MJIL 13(1) symposium. Other posts in this series can be found in the related posts below. Professor Darryl Robinson is to be commended for untangling what has to be one of the most tangled webs in international criminal law theory. The settled jurisprudence on command responsibility is anything but settled; it is contradictory, confusing, and full of conclusory statements and pronouncements that don’t hold water. With Professor...09 Oct LJIL Symposium Vol 25-3: Wording in International Law: A Response
[Jean d’Aspremont is Associate Professor of International Law, Amsterdam Centre for International Law (ACIL), University of Amsterdam and Editor-in-chief of the Leiden Journal of International Law] This post is part of the Leiden Journal of International Law Vol 25-3 symposium. Other posts in this series can be found in the related posts below. Debate has always been a central medium of thought-making and, hence, knowledge-production in social sciences. This is why, albeit aware of the pitfalls of such platforms (see my EJIL:Talk! post), I initiated, with the help of Dov...06 Sep Syria Insta-Symposium: The “Law” in International Law: A Response to Carvin
[Sondre Torp Helmersen teaches at the University of Oslo and is an LLM candidate at the University of Cambridge.] Stephanie Carvin recently contributed to the Syria Insta-Symposium with a post titled “A Legal Debate Devoid of Consequences (or Bringing Practical Judgment Back In)”. Her call for a practical perspective is timely. The decision of whether or not to attack must be necessarily be a political decision, on which political scientists such as herself may offer sound advice. However, she apparently does not take full account of the fact that international...14 Mar Cheng Book Roundtable: Morality and Legalism in Judging (A Response to Professor Howse)
...crucial as a moral matter because it promotes minimum world order. Further, the decisionmaking authority that states allocate to judges is not unbounded. It is limited to deciding legal disputes according to laws. It would thus be unethical for a judge to decide a dispute without regard to laws, or worse, based on his personal preferences. But strict legalism, as Professor Howse points out and as I explain in my book, does not exclude moral reasoning about the content of the applicable laws and the practical consequences of applying them...13 Mar Cheng Book Roundtable: Predicting, Explaining and Guiding (A Response to Professor Ku)
...do not make fine grained predictions. . . . Our goal is, rather, to give a simple but plausible account for the various features of international law . . . in terms of something other than a state’s propensity to comply with international law. In other words, rationalist theories and my theory try to explain how the international legal system functions or fails. The reader will have to decide for him or herself whether the highly-contextual accounts of international incidents in my book provide useful explanations of decisions and outcomes....
24 Feb Harmonizing Global Health Law and Human Rights Law to Develop Rights-Based Approaches to Global Health Emergencies
global health emergency has enabled inappropriate and violative public health responses across nations. As the world’s struggle against the coronavirus stretches on, we must begin to consider how global health law and human rights law can be harmonized – not only to protect human dignity in the face future global health crises, but also to strengthen effective public health responses with justice. The necessarily multi-sectoral response to COVID-19 reveals the distinctive nature of interpreting human rights limitations in a global health emergency that (1) is an international (compared to a...10 May The Past, Present, and Future of the Veto: A Further Response to Professor Jennifer Trahan
Finally, I would like to use this opportunity to briefly reflect on a broader normative matter. I am unable to determine with certainty whether Professor Trahan believes that, as a matter of lex lata, a rule has emerged to prohibit vetoes by the Permanent Members of the Security Council in situations of mass atrocities. In her response to my post she stated: “I do not believe my arguments are de lege ferenda.” However, in her response to Professor Kevin Jon Heller, she wrote: “the international system needs to evolve in...
25 Jul Missiles and Messages: Characterizing the Use of Force between Iran and Israel
...from the flexible interpretability of the self-defense doctrine and the customary uncertainty surrounding the precise boundary between lawful self-defense and unlawful reprisals. As has been acknowledged, “on several occasions, force was used in response to past events, rather than current or imminent armed actions, sometimes with considerable delay” (p. vii). The timing and purpose of a forcible response are closely interconnected, aiming to ensure “that the right to use force in self-defence is protective in nature”, rather than punitive (p. 255). Still, it has been argued that “[s]ome level of...