In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Search: Affective Justice: Book Symposium: A Response

02 Aug

While we are on the subject of Michael Ramsey’s book, I thought I would note that Justice Samuel Alito is currently teaching at Pepperdine Law School a two-week seminar from July 30 to August 10 on the War Powers Clause. The public announcement about the course is available here. According to the announcement, “Justice Alito indicated that the question of war and peace is fraught with difficulty, and it was not his intention to state a definitive view. Instead, he encouraged the students to remain open to competing considerations. Professor...
02.08.07 | |

17 Jul

[Dr. Aaron Matta is an expert in international law with working experience at International Courts. He also recently co-founded The Hague Council on Advancing International Justice , a network for and with practitioners, academics, and policymakers in the area of international justice. I would like to thank Dr. Philip Ambach and Anda Scarlat for their feedback on earlier drafts of this commentary.The views expressed here are of the authors alone] After nearly three years since the downing of the Malaysia Airlines MH17 flight, the countries comprising the Joint Investigation Team...
17.07.17 | |

03 Feb

[Anna Hankings-Evans is a German-Ghanaian attorney with focus on foreign investments into Sub-Saharan Africa.] It was a pleasure reading Andreas Buser’s book on the development and potential transformation of International Economic Law through the engagement of Emerging Powers. The book carefully weighs the perspectives of powerful and less powerful States to dissect and challenge what has been conventionally understood as the truth. Power is indeed a factor significantly shaping International Law. Yet, it has rarely gained prominence in academic literature beyond its alleged dichotomy and the disruptive and revolutionary conceptualization...
03.02.21 | |

22 Jul

The International Court of Justice has just read its judgment on preliminary objections in the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar). This is a brief note based on the reading of the judgment, based on my twitter thread ‘live tweeting’ the judgment and does not delve into the details of the legal argumentation – it is meant to give a quick overview of the judgment of the court. The case was initiated by The Gambia in November 2019...
22.07.22 | |

29 Sep

[Jennifer Keene-McCann is Fellow, Research and Policy at the Asia Justice Coalition and is based in Melbourne/Naarm, Australia.] As international lawyers we have many tools at our disposal to assist survivors of international crimes in a way that is meaningful and reflective of their experience. Consider the atrocities against the Rohingya. Four years on from the latest iteration of violence, there has been tremendous movement in the international community using the legal avenues available. In these four years, there has been: an international fact-finding mission (‘IFFM’) (actually established in March...
29.09.21 | |

14 Nov

On Monday through Wednesday next week, Mary Ellen O’Connell, the Robert and Marion Short Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame Law School, will join us to discuss her new book, The Power and Purpose of International Law. We are also very pleased that Beth Simmons, the Director of the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs and the Clarence Dillon Professor of International Affairs in the Department of Government at Harvard University, will also join us for the conversation. This book discussion will give us the opportunity to dig...
14.11.08 | |

14 Feb

As this it my final post in connection with this discussion of my book, How International Law Works, I want to thank Opinio Juris for giving me this opportunity, and the commentators for so thoughtfully sharing their opinions. Much of the discussion has been about the methodology used in the book, and as I have had my say on that subject in my several prior posts I will not dwell on it now. Let me instead mention a couple of things that I hope the book has achieved or will...
14.02.08 | |

01 Feb

international law is the product of nation-states cooperating to escape a brutish State of Nature—a result that is not only legally binding but also in each state’s self-interest. I have had the pleasure of reading the book, and it’s tremendous. Many international-law scholars are (understandably) resistant to the caricature of international law presented by the Posners and Yoos of the world, but few have the theoretical chops to engage in the kind of imminent critique of “New Realism” that Jens provides. I hope the book gets the audience it deserves....
01.02.15 | |

10 Apr

As readers will recall, I wrote a short response to Gabriella Blum’s wonderful essay on IHL and common-but-differentiated responsibilities for our inaugural Opinio Juris–Harvard International Law Journal symposium. HILJ has now published my much longer formal response. Here is an overview, from my introduction: Blum’s normative analysis of the desirability of CDRs in IHL is exceptionally powerful, and I agree with most of her conclusions. This brief response, therefore, is intended to be more constructive than critical. In particular, I want to raise five issues that I believe warrant further...
10.04.11 | |

10 Jul

...a poisoned bullet to protect yourself in self-defence? The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) prohibits the use of certain weapons. Under the Rome Statute and the Australian Commonwealth Criminal Code, it is a war crime to employ poison or poisoned weapons, prohibited gases, or prohibited bullets.In contrast, the law of self-defence does not specifically address the means of response to a threat, but rather merely requires the response to be necessary, reasonable and proportional. Under the Australian Criminal Code and the Rome Statute, there is no limitation on pleading self-defence...
10.07.14 | |

23 Jun

...response here. And in case you are wondering, here is the final paragraph The Spectator refused to run: Only Hilton knows why he felt the need to portray SOAS so unfairly. But his flagrant disregard for the truth seems to indicate that he is more afraid of SOAS’s multiculturalism than he is of its supposed anti-Semitism. For those who long for a whiter, more Judaeo-Christian world, the vibrancy of SOAS can be a scary sight indeed. I hope you’ll read both the original article and my response. Comments most welcome!...
23.06.16 | |

25 May

...it comes to punishment, claiming it is not a human rights court. One might expect similar flexibility in cases on the other side of the spectrum. Finally, Article 53(1)(c) of the Rome Statute allows some room for a manoeuvre granting the prosecution the power not to commence an investigation even where the situation is formally admissible if it serves the ‘interests of justice’. The ‘interests of justice’ is a broad category open to various interpretations, but ultimately it leaves the door open for a political compromise. The fragility of the...
25.05.15 | |