Search: Affective Justice: Book Symposium: A Response

...assessing individual criminal responsibility at the Court and raise questions about the implications thereof for international criminal justice. Collective crimes, individual responsibility International criminal justice is concerned with the ‘most serious’ crimes and with the ‘most responsible’ individuals that stand behind those crimes. The Nuremberg tribunal was established to try the ‘major war criminals’ of the European Axis. Similarly, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)’s completion strategy envisioned that ‘the most senior leaders suspected of being most responsible’ for the crimes in the Former Yugoslavia would be...

...in a peace settlement that will ultimately save lives requires ceding painful concessions to that villain’s power, especially when the concession is justice. And, yet, we know that true peace is never really achieved without justice.  It is possible that meaningful justice is not found in the actual legal judgements of tribunals, anyway, but the many social processes and political institutions that courts create a space for in the aftermaths of atrocities. And, for that matter, any sense of justice that victims and survivors gain from tribunals usually does not have much to do...

where regressive measures on environmental and climate issues are proliferating. Furthermore, by linking the fight against poverty and inequality with sustainability (para. 375), the Court places the interdependence between social justice and environmental justice at the center of the debate, a relationship that States often try to separate within their agendas. Thus, the standard set in this ruling requires a rethinking of public policy frameworks from a holistic perspective, in which backsliding on sustainability simultaneously implies a violation of the right to a healthy environment (para. 376). Critical Perspectives on...

...the byzantine administrative and personnel rules that is so much of the UN management system did not apply to us. The UN is simply incapable of administering international justice in an effective and efficient manner. Because the Special Court was not tied to these archaic management principles we were able to move fast, with less cost, with a lean dedicated team of people not focused on a UN career (where initiative can be frowned on) but on seeking justice for victims of international crimes. Alas, the International Criminal Court has...

...and so will profit additionally from the vulnerabilities of the displaced (just the sort of business on which the present regime appears to thrive…). A further point of concern had also been noted by Justice Blackmun in Sale, and this is the argument that in immigration and refugee matters, “the President and not Congress has sole constitutional authority.” Justice Thomas, concurring, hinted at such, while Justice Sotomayor observed that the majority’s interpretation “vests limitless discretion in the executive to abandon its inspection and processing duties,” which will make it all...

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,...

...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...

...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...

...undertaken emergency action in Mali by providing cultural heritage protection trainings to UN personnel but also to the Malian armed forces. An increase and strategic implementation of similar measures can contribute to the goals of instilling a sense of safety to the already traumatized victims and achieving sustainable justice. At the same time, the Court returned to concept of “deterrence” that it had employed in the Lubanga order, even though it had chosen to depart from this language entirely in the Katanga decision. More specifically, the Court in Lubanga had...

...to avert from the law. Post Gaza, the law’s impartiality and its blindness in the pursuit of justice remain on paper only. In Amarata Sen’s understanding of justice, he argues that professing for ideal justice is limited and exclusionary as it fails to address the everyday injustices faced by people, which hinder the application of the law universally. When discussing the application of international rules and laws the Global South has learnt, through experience, that the social, political and systematic realities of people is the context in which the 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...

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...