Search: Affective Justice: Book Symposium: A Response

compliance with the then-new UN Charter, and much less about re-allocating war powers under the U.S. Constitution. I should hasten to add that I am in favor of a robust military response to the Paris attacks (actually, I was in favor of a robust response before the Paris attacks too). And unlike Ilya, I think the President has broad powers under the Constitution to use military force without explicit congressional authorization. I just don’t think collective self-defense treaties like Article V are needed to authorize unilateral presidential action against ISIS....

I had hoped not to write any more posts about the international vs. internationalized tribunal debate. I have written extensively on the topic already, and the prospects for an international tribunal grow dimmer with each passing day. Alas, Patryk Labuda’s most recent entry on the topic at Just Security requires a response: although the arguments are the same unpersuasive ones we have been hearing for the past 18 months, Labuda makes them with his usual erudition and eloquence. (I mean that sincerely.) So it is important for his version of...

blogging about criminal membership and al-Bahlul at Lawfare. I wrote a response, which Lawfare’s Bobby Chesney was kind enough to post for me. Instead of reposting the lengthy exchange here, interested readers should check out the posts at Lawfare. You can find Peter’s original post here, and my response here. Feel free to weigh in below! My thanks to Peter for his response. UPDATE: Peter and I have gone one more round. His response to my response is here, and my response to his response to my response is here....

execute the laws. Furthermore, principles of necessity and proportionality are part of such laws. What's all the fuss about? Certainly not international law as such. Hostage Response..."Hostage, your logic is faulty, and is in direct conflict to AG Holder’s response. Think it through again." Nothing I said was contradicted by anything contained in Holder's weasel-worded statement. My logic is that: 1) the Court's have ruled that neither the Executive nor the Congress is allowed to do anything outside the territory of the United States that is prohibited by the Constitution;...

There are numerous problems with Mike’s response to my posts (here and here) about how the amicus brief distorts the ICTY’s jurisprudence. Before getting to them, though, it’s important to acknowledge that he and I agree about one thing: decisions of the ICTY are not primary sources of international law. That, too, is international law 101. Even here, though, the brief is problematic. The brief could have acknowledged that the ICTY has adopted knowledge as the customary mens rea of aiding and abetting but insisted that the tribunal’s analysis of...

[ Nora Salem is Assistant Professor and Head of the Public International Law Department at the German University in Cairo with a research focus on Women’s Human Rights in the Middle East.  She has recently published an entry for the MPEPIL on Sharia Reservations to Human Rights Treaties, as well as a book on The Impact of the UN Women’s Rights Convention on Egypt’s Domestic Legislation (Brill). ] After the WHO’s characterization of COVID-19 as a pandemic on 11 March 2020, the Egyptian government rapidly adopted a variety of containment measures to...

...old chestnut in legal theory, and in making some interesting methodological claims about the best way to conduct a jurisprudential argument about the concept of law. With respect to the philosophy of international law, on the other, the authors broach the neglected question of the legality of international law, and rightly deem it an important issue and not one that is trumped by others such as the legitimacy of international law in particular. In this response, I question the authors’ argument with respect, first of all, to their underlying reasoning...

...to COVID-19. National health systems have frequently neglected public health systems for disease prevention, and national responses have undermined sexual and reproductive health and rights, disproportionately impacted a range of marginalized populations, and failed to ensure equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines. Echoing criticisms from authorities within the UN human rights system, independent reviews of the WHO response have taken states to task for, amongst other things, their inability or unwillingness to cooperate in adopting human rights-based approaches to preventing and curtailing public health emergencies. These violative public health responses have...

...of low reporting of sexual violence against men and boys in the Rohingya context. The Female Experience of the Crisis Early focus on sexual violence against women and girls perpetuated the exclusion of men and boys from the sexual violence narrative. The 2019 report ‘We Need to Write Our Own Names’: Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment in the Rohingya Humanitarian Response in Cox’s Bazar from the Women’s Refugee Commission noted the early focus on female survivors and the need to provide specialised services, Early assessments in the crisis highlighted the...

...matter further, and the lack of any serious response by the Financial Stability Forum, the putative network of financial regulatory networks, suggests that there are some things networks cannot do. And the primary role played by the G20 – really, a modern day Concert of Europe – in developing and coordinating what international regulatory response we have seen should give anyone pause about the primacy of law or law-like institutions in a world where political actors will continue to play a critical role. But in the end, the problems of...

...a ‘crisis’ response by the EU and its Member States. Several commentators, including the present authors, framed the situation as a crisis of solidarity, triggered by particular policies (see e.g. here, here, and here). The Emergency Relocation Mechanism, the EU–Turkey Statement, the reintroduction of internal border controls and the intensification of external border controls, combined with restrictive individual state policies (see e.g. Sweden, Austria), have resulted in downgrading protection and in shifting responsibilities to particular countries in and outside Europe. The crisis was one of solidarity on (at least) three...

...Whelan must really be focused only on the specter of so-called “transnationalist” judges overturning the will of democratically elected leaders. But this concern is also without foundation. After all, when interpreting constitutional provisions, not a single sitting U.S. Supreme Court justice has taken the position that international or foreign law constitutes binding authority. As to concerns about customary international law, there are, as Whelan points out, hundreds of pages of academic debate on the precise nuances of how customary international law and federal common law interact, but the key point...