In association with the International Commission of Jurists

Search: Affective Justice: Book Symposium: A Response

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 | |

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 | |

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 | |

23 Mar

[Mark Drumbl is Professor at Washington and Lee University, School of Law. His research and teaching interests include public international law, global environmental governance, international criminal law, post-conflict justice, and transnational legal process. This contribution was originally posted at legalsightseeing.org. ] International judges get so very few monuments in their honor. One such judge, however, has two. This judge is Radhabinod Pal, from India. Justice Pal sat on the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE). Following World War II, General Douglas MacArthur convened the IMTFE to prosecute the...
23.03.19 | |

28 Jan

...international criminal justice—creating a historical record of mass atrocities—can make the trials slower and less efficient in terms of reaching outcomes for specific defendants. Professor Ford also finds that the ICTY performed more efficiently than the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL), thus challenging a perceived advantage of such hybrid tribunals over ad hoc tribunals like the ICTY. His conclusion suggests the need for future research on comparisons among tribunals within the international criminal justice field, which might have implications from an institutional design perspective. Professor Ford does not address...
28.01.14 | |

09 Feb

and other related areas. TJF’s bloggers are an impressive group including, among others, Mark Drumbl, Christopher Le Mon, William Schabas, and Ruti Teitel. Recent posts have spanned topics including the problems of the Iraqi special tribunal, conflict resolution in Uganda, why East Timor doesn’t want a tribunal, and Morocco’s truth commission. They also have links to full-text versions of transitional justice articles. For anyone interested staying informed on democratization, post-conflict reconstruction, or transitional justice, TJF is a site you will want to check out regularly. (Belated) Welcome to the blogosphere!...
09.02.06 | |

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 | |

19 Nov

Court of Justice also has declared that “the obligations stemming from an international agreement cannot violate fundamental rights.” In other words, the Italian Court justifies its attitude in saying that the kind of values it is protecting characterizes democratic legal civilizations and the EU. All things considered, the theory of counter-limits was conceived to shield the Constitution against EU laws, but was never used; here it is backed by the European Court of Justice’s decisions. What used to menace, specifically the EU, has now become a powerful source of legitimization....
19.11.14 | |

23 Apr

of whether Gaza is occupied. We will post the contributions on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. We will then post responses by the contributors on Thursday. The line-up is as follows: Prof. Aeyal Gross, Tel Aviv University Sari Bashi, Executive Director, Gisha: Legal Center for Freedom of Movement Valentina Azarov, Al Quds University Adv. Pnina Sharvit Baruch Dr. Matthew Saul, Durham University Readers will notice that the contributors come from all over the political spectrum. Indeed, what makes this symposium so interesting is that it is not possible to infer a...
23.04.12 | |

03 Jun

of the Court, including the functioning of different stages of proceedings. The Court’s decisions have significant repercussions: on domestic law, criminal theory, and the law of other international courts and tribunals. In this context, the book assesses the extent to which specific approaches and assumptions, both positive and negative, regarding the potential impact of the Court are in need of re-thinking. This book will be essential reading for practitioners, scholars, and students of international criminal law. The book includes my essay on Regulation 55 and an essay on co-perpetration by...
03.06.15 | |

26 Jul

Many international lawyers, particularly those involved in human rights, maintain that for certain serious international crimes, amnesty, exile, plea bargains and other forms of negotiated justice are impermissible. This is so even when the alternative to amnesty be the perpetuation of a murderous regime, or end a bloody civil war. In this view – I think the dominant one – justice cannot be traded for peace. Violations of certain norms bring with them the obligation to punish; and this obligation is not waivable, even for very significant return benefits. The...
26.07.07 | |

29 Jun

The Supreme Court today issued its decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and ruled that the military commissions were invalid. The decision is available here. Justice Stevens wrote the 5-3 opinion and was joined by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, and in part Justice Kennedy. Justices Kennedy and Breyer wrote separate opinions. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Scalia dissented and wrote separate dissenting opinions. Chief Justice Roberts took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Here is a key excerpt of the case holding that the Geneva Conventions apply to...
29.06.06 | |