Search: Affective Justice: Book Symposium: A Response

[ Gregory Gordon is Associate Professor of Law, Associate Dean for Development and External Affairs and Director of the Research Postgraduates Programme at The Chinese University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law. He was formerly a prosecutor with the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Special Investigations.] I am grateful to Opinio Juris, especially organizers Chris Borgen and Jessica Dorsey, for providing this amazing platform to have a discussion about my new book Atrocity Speech Law: Foundation, Fragmentation, Fruition. And I would like...

...view that the United States and “Europe” have dictated the terms of the global economy for too long. Set against this context, “Emerging Powers, Global Justice and International Economic Law” is a timely book, based on a doctoral dissertation which Andreas Buser defended at the Department of Law of Freie Universität Berlin and which he wrote under the supervision of Professor Heike Krieger and in the context of the Berlin-Potsdam Research Group on “The International Rule of Law – Rise or Decline?” Andreas Buser examines the potential contribution of four...

...India and Thailand. A uniting factor in this region is the non-ratification of the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees, resulting in ad-hoc policies that govern refugee status and protection. Countries in the region have adopted different responses towards the Rohingya refugee crisis. The States’ varied response has also resulted in a lack of uniformity in the strategy adopted by country specific UN agencies working on this issue; while Bangladesh co-leads the Joint Response  Plan, which coordinates aid by multiple agencies including UNHCR, IOM and UNFPA, Thailand does not...

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...

...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...

...kill. Goodman has now responded with a long post of his own in which he claims that my post is “riddled with errors.” I don’t have time to recapitulate the entire debate; interested readers should head to Lawfare. (Bobby Chesney’s introduction to Goodman’s most recent response contains links to all of the contributions.) I also don’t have time to respond to all of my supposed errors. Instead, in this post, I simply want to address three of Goodman’s most problematic claims, all of which are based on selective quotation of...

[Dr. Anne T. Gallagher is the Head of Operations at Equity International, Technical Director of Asia Regional Trafficking in Persons Project, and the former UN Adviser on Trafficking] My response to James Hathaway, written with the benefit of close involvement in the development of the new legal framework, as well as in its implementation at the national level in over forty countries, provides an alternative and a sharply differing perspective on the global battle to combat trafficking. In considering each of Hathaway’s major concerns in turn, and discrediting the assumptions...

...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...

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,...

...sparking concerns in Israel about the possibility of an imminent attack. This situation further coincided with the killing of Fuad Shukr, a senior Hezbollah commander (also supported by Iran), in an Israeli airstrike on a suburb of Beirut, the Lebanese capital. Time has since passed without any major response to those initial threats by the international community leaving Israel and the broader Middle East in a state of on-going hostility and tension. While the nature and severity of Iran’s overall response remains unclear, Iran has issued a prime facie threat...

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...

[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...