Search: Affective Justice: Book Symposium: A Response

the merits of the genocide claims in the future. However, this response chooses critically to focus on the way Finkelstein and Votel have framed their arguments of human shielding within this conflict, and in disputing it hope to elicit to readers alternative ways of viewing the discourse from a historically correct position. As Martha Minow helpfully reminds the international community, tackling injustice requires us to do so without “demonizing our enemies”, and a useful step within that process is to humanize our conflicts and adversaries within their correct historical narratives....

[Charlotte Renglet is a PhD candidate working on climate litigation and indigenous peoples’ rights at the Faculty of Law and Criminology of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Prof. Dr. Stefaan Smis is the Head of the Department of Public Law at the Faculty of Law and Criminology of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel and a part-time Reader in International Law at the University of Westminster.] [This work was supported by the Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO – Research project G079120N).] In the absence of an adequate political response to climate change, a...

and in the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (“the submission of the exercise of the right of self-defence to the conditions of necessity and proportionality is a rule of customary international law.”?) Although time and space do not allow a complete discussion of the concept of proportionality as relates to all the questions raised by Benjamin Davis, Katharine and others, it is our position that the response to the attacks of 11 September 2001 has been...

I want to thank the editors of Opinio Juris for hosting this forum and inviting me to participate, the editors of the Volume under review for their magnificent work in putting together such an impressive and comprehensive set of essays, and Andrew Kent for his thoughtful response to my contribution to the Volume. Let me here take up the two main criticisms that Professor Kent helpfully offers in response to my essay. The fundamental claim of my contribution is that, while departing from past doctrinal precedents in significant respects, the...

...a ‘means-end proportionality’ approach with the focus on restoring state’s defensive capacity, it is possible for a nuclear strike to be lawful, even if not commensurate to anticipated attack. To this end, the NPR implicitly assumes that a limited nuclear strike could be less destructive than a large scale conventional response. The employment of tactical nuclear weapons, which allow for the precise targeting, could be justified as a measure to halt the imminent attack, which, if occurring, would require much more destructive a response. It leaves us though with the...

...regime fragmentation offers new-found opportunities to link issues and institutions. Karen’s observations in her article make an important contribution to IEL scholarship. I thoroughly enjoyed Karen’s article and appreciated her conclusion about the dynamic nature of MEAs. To be fair in this response, neither of the issues that I’m identifying as gaps are an explicit part of Karen’s well-researched project. In reflecting on the MJIL article, the two analytical gaps for me were 1) a pragmatic explanation of why there has been a profusion of cooperative efforts across treaty bodies,...

book, The Law on the Use of Force: a Feminist Analysis (Routledge, 2011) where I argue: A prescriptive analogy assumes the correlation of domestic legal categories with international legal categories and, therefore, explains international legal justifications for violence by drawing upon domestic legal justifications for violence. In contrast, the conceptual analysis developed in this book does not assume the sameness of international and domestic legal structures instead, it seeks, to expose concepts developed in Western domestic legal orders that are assumed to exist in the international legal system. . ....

In God and Gold I write about three elements of England’s success. Roger asks how I combine the three into one story – and wonders whether the whole story hangs together. In response, let me describe the three pieces of my story, and show how I think they fit. First, England was a lucky country – the Goldilocks of early modern Europe. It wasn’t too big – like the Holy Roman Empire or France; it wasn’t too small like Holland. It was just right. The English Reformation wasn’t too hot...

[Ariel Meyerstein received his J.D. from Boalt Hall (2006) and is currently a PhD candidate, Jurisprudence and Social Policy Program. His recent scholarship includes, “Between Law and Culture: Rwanda’s Gacaca and Postcolonial Legality,” 32 Law and Social Inquiry 467-508 (2007), “Transitional Justice and Post-Conflict Israel/Palestine: Assessing the Applicability of the Truth Commission Paradigm,” 38 Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 281 (2007), “The Law (and Lawyers) as Enemy Combatant(s),” University of Florida Journal of Law and Public Policy (forthcoming).] In this reply, I do not want to take on...

Anupam Chander I am grateful to Mark Wu for penning a thoughtful response to some of the ideas in “Trade 2.0.” I am fortunate to have such an expert commentator. Wu agrees with my aims, but worries that the political will may be lacking to effect my proposals. He also offers four other hurdles to implementation. I consider each concern below, beginning (in the interest of easy cross-reference) with the one he labels “first,” and concluding with a response to the political will objection. First, Wu is concerned that GATS...

...was a ‘radical change from previous versions’ of the IHR, moving from a passive approach relying on a list of diseases and strict national measures to a fluid, more interconnected approach. Under the IHR 2005, the ‘WHO plays a central role in surveillance, risk assessment and response and aims at ensuring an effective but proportional public health response to avoid unnecessary interference with traffic and trade’. WHO Member States are obligated to cooperate in good faith with each other and the WHO in detection, notification, and taking measures in response...

...simplistic terms, we should simply work harder in more intellectually inclusive ways to ensure that ICL does not eclipse other regulatory possibilities. It’s precisely for this reason that I spent so much ink in the article making space for alternative initiatives, and why I pestered my friends at Opinio Juris to invite responses from scholars who I knew full well would disagree with me. Moyn continues his helpful response by citing Kierkegaard’s example of a man with so much food in his mouth he’s unable to chew as a caution...