Search: Affective Justice: Book Symposium: A Response
08 Feb A Response to Erin F. Delaney and Samuel Issacharoff by David Schleicher
[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,...11 Feb Ensuring Repair through Reparations: A Response to Hari M. Osofsky by Maxine Burkett
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...15 Nov Dualism is Overrated – As is Monism: A Response to Julian Ku
...law obligations by failing to enforce those obligations (usually treaties) domestically.” However, according to Ku, the decision of the High Court of Justice of England in Wales in Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union of November 3 tells us otherwise, namely that dualism “makes it harder [for a State] to withdraw from [its] international obligations.” Ku places an emphasis on the High Court’s statement that while the conduct of foreign affairs (and more specifically “the making and unmaking of treaties”) is a prerogative of the Crown,...
21 Aug The Dangers of Depoliticizing Human Shields: A Response to Finkelstein and Votel
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....20 Oct YJIL Symposium: Response to Mark Wu
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...