Search: Affective Justice: Book Symposium: A Response
04 Feb Book Discussion With Walter Russell Mead on “God and Gold”
We are very pleased to introduce Walter Russell Mead to Opinio Juris readers to discuss his most recent book, God and Gold: Britain, America, and the Making of the Modern World. Walter Russell Mead is the Henry A. Kissinger senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations and one of the country’s leading students of American foreign policy. His book, Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World (Alfred A. Knopf, 2004), was widely hailed by reviewers, historians, and diplomats as an important...31 Oct Opinio Juris-EJIL Talk! Joint Book Discussion of Kevin Jon Heller’s “The Nuremberg Military Tribunals and The Origins of International Criminal Law”
Opinio Juris and EJIL: Talk! are happy to announce that we will be hosting two joint book discussions. The first book is OJ’s own Kevin Heller’s The Nuremberg Military Tribunals and the Origins of International Criminal Law (Oxford UP). That discussion starts today. We have a fantastic lineup of discussants, to whom we are most grateful for their time and insight. On EJIL: Talk! it’ll be Michael Marrus (Toronto), Alexa Stiller (Bern), and Rob Cryer (Birmingham), and on Opinio Juris, David Glazier (Loyola, LA), Detlev Vagts (Harvard), Roger Clark (Rutgers-Camden),...27 Oct Book Symposium The Electronic Silk Road: Reply by Anupam Chander
[Anupam Chander is Professor of Law at The University of California, Davis] I am honored to have such a brilliant and prominent set of interlocutors from across the world discussing my book, The Electronic Silk Road: How the Web Binds the World Together in Commerce. I am grateful for the sharp insights each of my commentators brings, and humbled by the praise they offer. Each of the commentators has selected a different aspect of the book to focus on in his or her remarks, and so I will respond to...
20 Sep The 2024 Amendments to the International Health Regulations: A Commentary (Part II: Selected Substantive Amendments)
...that the 2005 definition of a PHEIC in Article 1(1) IHR as an ‘extraordinary event’ in one state which is determined to ‘(i) constitute a public health risk to other States through the international spread of disease’ and ‘(ii) to potentially require a coordinated international response’ has long been plagued by vagueness – are exacerbated by the amendments. No clear ‘severe’ or ‘life-threatening’ disease benchmarks have been included through the amendments in Article 1 IHR or the decision instrument in Annex 2 to be applied in accordance with the principles...17 Jan A Response to Ohlin about IHL and IHRL
The following is a guest-post by Gabor Rona, the International Legal Director of Human Rights First. It is a response to a post at LieberCode by Jens Ohlin, a Professor at Cornell Law School, that argues international human rights law (IHRL) does not apply in armed conflict, because it is displaced by international humanitarian law (IHL). Prof. Ohlin’s conclusion that IHRL doesn’t (and shouldn’t) apply in armed conflict cannot survive a more than superficial look at the lay of the legal and practical landscape. Essentially, his horse left the barn...13 Jul An e-SOS for Cyberspace by Duncan B. Hollis
[This post is part of the Second Harvard International Law Journal/Opinio Juris Symposium.] In 2007, I authored two papers — one for a military audience and another for a legal one — arguing that debates over the law’s response to the growing range of cyberthreats would likely track ongoing debates over law’s response to terrorism. In that context, we’ve seen 4 options emerge: First, those who say terrorism is a crime, and only a crime, with any legal response limited to law enforcement mechanisms. Second, those who insist terrorism is...04 May Quick Thoughts on UBL’s Killing — and a Response to Lewis
...support characterizing this as a military operation conducted under the laws of armed conflict and not a law enforcement operation. This is not necessarily wrong, but it is at least misleading. Although how a state chooses to respond to a threat from a non-state actor is relevant to whether hostilities rise to the level of armed conflict, the form of the response — military or law-enforcement — does not determine whether an armed conflict exists. It is simply one factor, the importance of which is debatable. States do not get...
04 Jan A Response to Mariniello About the Palestine Investigation
all of its investigations and cases. Conclusion There are other problematic claims in Mariniello’s post — that Khan has focused on crimes allegedly committed by non-state actors (such as Hamas and Israeli settlers) more than on crimes allegedly committed by Israel; that Khan has suggested the evidence against Hamas is stronger than against Israel; that Khan has predetermined that Israel’s justice system is adequate to address alleged Israeli crimes. But this response is long enough, so I will simply refer readers to my earlier post responding to the Open Letter,...26 Jul International Law in the U.S. Supreme Court: A Response to Professor Golove’s Essay
“response essay” to David Golove’s fascinating essay on “The Supreme Court, the War on Terror, and the American Just War Constitutional Tradition.” Like Mike Ramsey (Response Essay in Part V.E.) I find much to admire but also some things to question and debate in Professor Golove’s thought-provoking contribution to this volume. Professor Golove argues that the war-on-terror decisions in Hamdi, Rasul, Hamdan and Boumediene were striking departures from more recent precedent and principles, but were fundamentally consistent with three deeper themes from earlier periods of American constitutional history, what Professor...