Search: Affective Justice: Book Symposium: A Response
01 Feb Go Read Jens’s New Book!
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....14 Nov OUP/Opinio Juris Book Club: Mary Ellen O’Connell’s The Power and the Purpose of International Law
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 Feb Final Thoughs on Discussion of How International Law Works
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...10 Apr Response to Blum Published
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...23 Jun My Response to a Recent Attack on SOAS in The Spectator
...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!...10 Jul Guest Post: Self-Defence – Weapons, Lawful Commands, Duty to Retreat and Summary
...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...