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....

...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...

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...

...a significant event that “disrupts the functioning of a community or society” is somewhat misleading. This current definition is rooted in a particular epistemology that UUPB has uncritically accepted, thereby allowing systemic injustices to persist. The prevailing notion suggests that disasters should be managed in a way that prevents disruption to this injustice, thereby enabling business as usual. In a sense, disaster management, as it’s understood today, focuses on maintaining injustices during disasters rather than addressing them. Disruption of the Functioning of a Community or a Society A community or...

...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...

...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...

...1947. I already quoted what the Director General of Israel’s Foreign Ministry said in 1949 in my response to their first article. They have ignored what he said. Then there was the statement made by the Foreign Minister of the Provisional Government of Israel in April 1948, which addressed the very point they now contest: “With regard to the status of Assembly resolutions in international law, it was admitted that any which touched the national sovereignty of the Members of the United Nations were mere recommendations and not binding. However,...

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...

...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,...

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...