Search: Affective Justice: Book Symposium: A Response

...on a ... country,” not “on” a NSA. Gray wrote that “the response of the world in 1998 with respect to the U.S. use of force in self-defense against al Qaeda that “the response of the world was generally muted,” whereas others wrote that most states had “acquiesced” and generally accepted “Article 51's application. See id. At 247-49 n.29, and Mary Ellen at 97 AJIL 446, 450 (2003) (“use of force in Afghanistan in 2001 was lawful self-defense.... September 11 attacks were part of a series of terrorist actions” that...

...of a consistent (hence non-arbitrary) notion of human rights, of the equalizing logic of meaningful distributive justice, of the truly universal application of democratic principles and values. It is the communitarian critique redux and writ large, and no less impotent for all that: as Stephen Holmes amply demonstrated in several books, its fears and complaints amount to an impressive inability to appreciate the myriad historical and political virtues of the Liberal tradition from Hobbes through Rawls, the selfsame virtues that made possible democratic constitutions and ways of governance (I know,...

can find the Volokh Conspiracy’s intro post here. And here is a roundup of links to sources that debunk the book and/or its underlying academic studies: A forthcoming article by Carnegie-Mellon’s John Gasper. An analysis by Brendan Nyhan, a professor of government at Dartmouth. An analysis by Geoff Nunberg, a linguistics professor at Berkeley. Critical thoughts by Columbia’s Andrew Gelman. An analysis by Media Matters. Not surprisingly, the authors of the book have received funding from the usual conservative suspects, such as AEI, The Heritage Foundation, and the Hoover Institute....

...someone of being a murderer. But that isn’t the worst claim in the above paragraph. I find particularly troubling Ní Aolain’s suggestion that an “organized” response to the original petition (ie, two professors wrote a response and asked others who agreed with them to sign it) might make “younger scholars” “feel unable to articulate their discomfort” (ie, publicly accuse a respected scholar of being a murderer) because of potential career repercussions. Does she have any evidence for the idea that the signatories to the counter-petition are going to persecute the...

No doubt the phrase ‘armed attack’ must be construed broadly enough to permit some anticipatory response. But it is a very different matter to expand it to include threatening deployments or demonstrations that do not have imminent attack as their purpose or probable outcome. To accept that reading is to make the occasion for forceful response essentially a question for unilateral national decision that would not only be formally unreviewable, but not subject to intelligent criticism either… In this sense, I believe an Article 51 defence would have signalled that...

...project of participatory ethnic nationalism in Georgia. Taken together, these failures risk tying US policy to a standard of Georgian behavior in war, conflict, control of non-ethnic Georgian territories – to the US asserting a frankly romanticized standard of Georgian goodness and purity – that, as a matter of history, even recent history, they have not managed to meet. US responses should be tied to Russian ill-doing, which are legion, not unlikely assertions of Georgian virtue. There is, in my view, no reason why the US response should be any...

...in his magisterial book “Armed Attack” and Article 51 of the UN Charter (p. 155): In the end, customary practice suggests that, subject to the necessity and proportionality criteria, even small-scale bombings, artillery, naval or aerial attacks qualify as ‘armed attacks’ activating Article 51 UN Charter, as long as they result in, or are capable of resulting in destruction of property or loss of lives. By contrast, the firing of a single missile into some uninhabited wasteland as a mere display of force, in contravention of Article 2(4) UN Charter,...

...history to determine whether the coalition attack on Afghanistan was a legal response by the United States and its coalition partners in an act of self-defense after the 9/11 attack. I remember that the Administration was very dismissive of what the Taliban offered in response to the request to turn over certain Al-Qaeda persons. I have tended to think Afghanistan worked as a matter of self-defense and in light of the September 12 UNSC resolution but I have felt so duped by this administration on so many things that I...

[Linda E. Carter is a Distinguished Professor of Law Emerita at University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law. This essay was initially prepared at the request of FIU Law Review for its micro-symposium on The Legal Legacy of the Special Court for Sierra Leone by Charles C. Jalloh (Cambridge, 2020). An edited and footnoted version is forthcoming in Volume 15.1 of the law review in spring 2021.] Professor Jalloh’s excellent book on the legal legacy of the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) gives us a comprehensive view of...

[Sungjoon Cho is currently a Visiting Professor of Law at Northwestern University School of Law. He is also Professor of Law and Norman and Edna Freehling Scholar, Chicago-Kent College of Law.] This post is part of the Virginia Journal of International Law Symposium, Volume 52, Issues 1 and 2. Other posts in this series can be found in the related posts below. First of all, I would like to thank Profs. Shaffer, Trachtman and Kelly for their valuable comments my Article, “Beyond Rationality: A Sociological Construction of the World Trade...

[ Francesco Messineo is a Lecturer in Law, Kent Law School, Canterbury (UK).] This post is part of the Leiden Journal of International Law Vol 25-3 symposium. Other posts in this series can be found in the related posts below. Unless international lawyers get their act together and agree on the basic meaning of the key terms in their discipline, says Jean d’Aspremont, observers (and, crucially, funders) may suddenly realize that the profession is really no more than an ‘expensive debating club’ – often funded by the taxpayer – ‘in...