Search: Affective Justice: Book Symposium: A Response

...and of global affairs more broadly is both essentialist and double standard-y. However, feminist hope is (fortunately) stubborn. Just because the panaceas of liberal international justice might fall short, this does not mean we lack inspiration and opportunities for crafting other (more solidarious) ways of doing justice. As explored by others before me, these more solidarious ways can take the form of centring the process of doing international justice on active listening and on valuing the experience of those most affected by structural violence and injustices worldwide (such as people’s...

No surprise, the Supreme Court in the Second Amendment case of D.C. v. Heller refrains from any discussion of contemporary foreign or international laws or practices. The Court, per Justice Scalia, does discuss historical comparativism at some length (pp. 19-22), and Justice Stevens in dissent challenges this historical reading (pp. 27-31). But the really interesting part of Heller regarding comparativism comes from Justice Breyer’s dissent. He examines one amicus brief‘s pragmatic arguments that look to comparative experiences to suggest tighter gun control laws lead to more murders. (See my post...

...suggest here that reading these two episodes in Jenin through Barrie Sander’s book, Doing Justice to History, offers a productive way to think through the historical possibilities of (criminal) judgment on Palestine at the ICC. What role has history played thus far in framing the ICC’s (highly limited and limiting jurisdictional) approach? What type of history could we expect to be written in any future judgment and how might this serve as a way to heal the wrongs of the past? In this short reflection, I consider some key points...

In the beginning of his concurrence in Medellin, Justice Stevens reads Article 94 not to require the Texas state courts to take steps to ensure that the U.S. complys with the ICJ judgment. I disagree with his interpretation of “undertakes to comply,” but he’s almost convinced me that it’s a close question, at least with respect to whether the treaty (plus the Supremacy Clause) imposes an obligation on the state court to entertain a habeas petition that state law would otherwise foreclose. In any event, and more to the point,...

the other branches have rejected) to interpret the U.S. Constitution. This is new stuff, and I don’t think (based on his own use of it in Lawrence and Roper) that Justice Kennedy himself has come up with an explanation of why it is so important to cite international treaties when interpreting the Constitution. No justice has offered a particularly impressive defense of this practice (see discussion of Ginsburg here and Breyer here). It’s too bad that the Justice can’t do better than simply telling us that the “world is flat”....

example, is facing prosecution through the African Union, a move which has had enthusiastic support from African human-rights advocates. Obviously, these are very difficult issues. My co-author Jide Nzelibe and I have discussed the costs of international criminal justice in Africa at length here in this forthcoming article in the Washington University Law Review, but we both would agree that there are no easy answers here. Hopefully, what is emerging in Africa should remind supporters of international criminal justice that there are downsides as well as upsides to these processes....

arena would be to succumb to self-subversion, or worse, to surrender to the blackmail of perfection. It is better to bring some human rights abusers to justice than none at all: the best should not be the enemy of the good." The problem, of course, is that the belief that international criminal justice can make incremental headway in terms of reducing its selectivity is based on an article of faith, a faith which the history of international criminal justice to date would suggest is misplaced. Nonetheless, I imagine most would...

...limited so register here to claim your spot! Decolonizing International Justice: Strategies Towards Structural Justice for Slavery and Colonial Crimes: On the occasion of the 22nd session of the Assembly of States Parties of the International Criminal Court, the Permanent Missions to the United Nations of the Republic of Sierra Leone, Mexico and Argentina, the Emergent Justice Collective, UN Women, Human Rights Watch, Justice Rapid Response, Promise Institute at UCLA Law and the Center for Justice and Accountability are pleased to invite you to this side event on 5 December...

In past decades, Latin American countries witnessed violent conflict and serious human rights abuses at the hands of state and non-state actors. In these contexts, conflict-related sexual violence was widespread, perpetrated in order to advance military goals and as a tactic of repression against political opponents and communities. But as the region has grappled with the past through efforts toward justice and accountability, there have been positive legal developments that warrant attention and should inform policy, judicial, and programmatic responses elsewhere. Taking stock of these developments, four leading experts––Daniela Kravetz,...

Justice head Gene Fidell on military justice systems worldwide. Here’s a description: Developments in the field of military justice have been coming at an extraordinary pace for the last several years, both in the United States and around the world. Some of these developments have been wise, some have not. In some respects, there has been remarkable resistance to change. The purpose of this blog will be to identify and comment on developments in the reform of military justice from a national and global perspective. Welcome to the blogosphere GMJR!...

At International Criminal Law Bureau, Kirsty Sutherland calls attention to a surprise moment during the Taylor verdict that has received, to the best of my knowledge, absolutely no attention from the media: In an unexpected turn of events, as Justice Lussick (Presiding), Justice Doherty and Justice Sebutinde rose to leave the courtroom after delivering the verdict, Justice Sow addressed the Court: “The only moment where a Judge can express his opinion is during the deliberations or in the courtroom, and, pursuant to the Rules, when there are no serious deliberations,...

...the conduct alleged to have occurred in the United States was not relevant. The facts alleged in Cardona certainly seem sufficient to recognize a cause of action under the criteria set forth in Justice Breyer’s concurring opinion. Four Justices joined that opinion, and it takes only four votes to grant cert. If those Justices think the facts in Cardona are sufficiently egregious to persuade Justice Kennedy that an ATS cause of action against U.S. corporations should exist in at least some circumstances, they could well vote to hear the case....