Search: Affective Justice: Book Symposium: A Response

I want to give my sincere thanks to all the participants in the symposium on Does the Constitution Follow the Flag? Many terrific points, questions, and critiques were raised (made?) this week, and I certainly found it a fascinating discussion. My book is an attempt to synthesize and reframe a wide range of issues related to territoriality, and in so doing I necessarily skimmed over, or ignored outright, numerous subsidiary topics of importance. Luckily many of these arose in our discussion this week. Sovereignty, as I note in the book,...

...lawyers will—or should—appreciate the reality check on the limitations of individual state action via universal jurisdiction cases, an increasingly popular alternative avenue to justice. I cannot speak for Nahlawi, but I interpreted this as a way of expressing support for international justice mechanisms, which do not exist for Syria other than the evidence-gathering/case-file-preparing International Impartial and Independent Mechanism (IIIM). As an RtoP tool, the IIIM is perhaps all the more valuable for indicating practice and opinio juris that non-UNSC UN bodies (here, the UNGA) are empowered to discuss and make...

The day, a few weeks ago, when America Between the Wars arrived on my doorstop also saw the arrival of another book via Amazon … Sebastian Faulks-as-Ian Fleming, The Devil May Care. The serious policy-history tome or the new James Bond novel? What to do, what to do? I idly picked up America Between the Wars, assuming that within nanoseconds I would get bored and flip over to Bond – but no, I found myself quite entranced with this book of 1990s history. I finished it before ever returning to...

I’ve posted on SSRN my recent book review for the American Journal of International Law of Malgosia Fitzmaurice and Olufemi Elias‘ Contemporary Issues in the Law of Treaties (Eleven International Publishing, 2005). Here’s the abstract: On the surface, CONTEMPORARY ISSUES IN THE LAW OF TREATIES, by Malgosia Fitzmaurice and Olufemi Elias, makes no overt claims regarding the debate over the fragmentation of international law. Yet on closer examination, I argue in this book review that their work has the potential to make an important contribution to that discourse. In both...

the 21st century. As the book recounts, in 1994, the Clinton team asked 90-year old George Kennan to come down from Princeton so they could get his advice on replacing the doctrine that he had articulated so successfully in 1947. The former diplomat’s sage counsel: “forget about the bumper sticker; try to come up with a thoughtful paragraph or two.” Well, there’s some food for thought. We look forward to your responses to this or any other aspect of the book. And again, thanks so much for having us here....

...U.S. exceptionalism, however, may lie elsewhere. Rather than in the conduct itself, it may lie in distinct European versus U.S. approaches to questions of the legality of said conduct. Each jurisdiction, of course, responded differently to efforts at international review of the legality of the relevant interventions. Even more telling, however, might be the response to domestic challenges to the legality of each conflict. Recall, thus, then-Prime Minister Tony Blair’s lengthy testimony (and examination) before the Parliament’s Iraq Inquiry, in which he offered a vigorous defense of British participation in...

that it's an academic's thing, not so important to administrations. But I would have thought that from the moment in which plaintiffs began to win corporate liability holdings, the issue was far more important. Maybe not. Jeffrey Davis In my book, Justice Across Borders (Cambridge 2008), I conduct an extensive quantitative and qualitative analysis of US involvement in ATS cases (among other ATS issues). The analysis includes interviews with lawyers from the Departments of State and Justice including the Legal Adviser. For example, in District Court cases defendants prevail in...

[David Schleicher, author of What If Europe Held an Election and No One Cared?, responds to Erin F. Delaney and Samuel Issacharoff] I would like to again thank Erin Delaney and Samuel Issacharoff for their kind if skeptical response to my paper. Their praise is particularly appreciated as Professor Issacharoff’s brilliant work on election law has been, and remains, an inspiration for my own scholarship. And their criticisms are well taken, even if I disagree with some of them. They make three basic points, which I’ll address in turn. First,...

Professor Osofsky’s response to my article is convincing and her exploration of the gaps in my earlier discussion of climate reparations is welcome — in fact, it is encouraged. The hope in writing an article on climate reparations was to investigate seriously alternate avenues for remedy for the climate vulnerable and encourage creativity across scales, between novel claimants, and for individuals or billions, in careful response to their current and forecasted environment. It is the first brush stroke on a quite large, and perhaps expanding, canvas. What should not be...

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...

...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...

...region as Iran’s responses were directed at US military bases in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries and their energy infrastructure. The European Union (EU or the Union) has issued over 10 statements regarding the war in Iran (can be accessed in European Council and European Commission press release pages). However, not only it has curiously refrained from mentioning the US or Israel, either implicitly or explicitly, but its statements have solely condemned Iran’s responses in the strongest terms, while vaguely expressing concerns over the developments in Iran, maritime security,...