Search: Affective Justice: Book Symposium: A Response
15 Sep Guest post: A Response to Kevin Heller on the Nature of Self-Defense
...so while anticipating and preparing for armed resistance from the host/target state. And host/target states which have not granted permission for others to use force on their territory will assert a right to defend their sovereignty by treating such uses of force as aggression, and by responding with force if they so choose. The host/target state’s response, though theoretically unlawful, is very likely to occur and is something that any state relying upon the “unable or unwilling” standard will both anticipate and factor in to its decision to use force....01 Aug Opinio Juris Symposium: A Clarification on the President’s Power to Respond to Attacks
Professor Lederman asks in a comment to Professor Kent’s post if we could clarify our disagreement on the President’s power to respond to attacks. Briefly, here is how I understand it. I think both of us agree: (1) That Congress has the ultimate control over the U.S. response to an attack, in that it can limit the response by statute, or simply refuse to approve funding for certain kinds of responses; and (2) That in the absence of statutory approval the President can “repel sudden attacks” (as Madison said at...27 Apr The Status of the Gaza Strip – a Short Response
[Col. (Ret.) Pnina Sharvit Baruch is a Former Head of the International Law Department of the IDF Military Advocate General’s Office] This is the fourth response in our Symposium on the Functional Approach to the Law of Occupation. Earlier posts can be found in the Related Links at the end of this post. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond in brief to some of the points made in the excellent contributions of fellow bloggers. At the outset, as a former practitioner, I admit that I prefer functional approaches...19 May Open Comment Thread for Harold Koh’s Post on the Osama Bin Laden Operation
...unableness of the Pakistani government to address that threat? For what it’s worth, the AfPak terminology seems to be on the rise again. In the case of the targeted killings outside Afghanistan, it must be heartbreaking for Mr Koh to see proper legal justifications give way to political expediency. Chris Rogers So Koh's response is essentially to cut and paste his ASIL speech? There are important legal questions that continue to be unanswered, which Koh's response has done nothing to clarify. Oddly, he says nothing about the legal grounds for...