Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Geva, Maayan
2016.
Law, Politics and Violence in Israel/Palestine.
p.
1.
Article contents
Revolution or Reform: Has Humanitarianism Established a New Legal Order? Should It?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 January 2014
Extract
Professor Ruti Teitel, author of Humanity's Law, is perhaps best known for her foundational work on the concept of transitional justice. She is a proven norm entrepreneur. Her development of the concept of transitional justice demonstrates her ability to detect progress for those victimized by atrocities. It also demonstrates her skill in developing responses to those atrocities. Transitional justice, as Teitel envisioned it, has an ambitious agenda as a ‘conception of justice associated with periods of political change, characterized by legal responses to confront the wrongdoings of repressive predecessor regimes’. That said, transitional justice in its original conception has a specific focus, limited by time and circumstance. Those limits are in part responsible for its success as a concept and practice.
- Type
- REVIEW ESSAYS
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 2014
References
1 R. G. Teitel, Humanity's Law (2011).
2 Teitel, R. G., ‘Transitional Justice Genealogy’, (Spring 2003) 16 Harvard Human Rights Journal, at 69Google Scholar (internal citations omitted).
3 Meron, T., ‘The Humanization of Humanitarian Law’, (2000) 94 (2)American Journal of International Law 239CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
4 T. Meron, The Humanization of International Law (2006).
5 See Teitel, supra note 1, at 8.
6 Particularly as expressed in the 2011 volume.
7 Teitel, R. G., ‘Humanity's Law: Rule of Law for the New Global Politics’, (2001–2) 35 Cornell Int’l L. J. 355Google Scholar.
8 Ibid., at 357.
9 Ibid., at 357.
10 Ibid., at 355.
11 Ibid., at 357.
12 Ibid., at 359, internal citations omitted.
13 Ibid., at 373.
14 Ibid., at 374.
15 Ibid., at 375.
16 Ibid., at 375.
17 Ibid., at 387.
18 Teitel, R. G., ‘The Wages of Just War: Comment on Richard Arneson's Just Warfare Theory and Noncombatant Immunity’ (2006) 39 Cornell Int’l L. J. 689Google Scholar.
19 Ibid., at 696.
20 Ibid., at 696.
21 Teitel, R. G., ‘Humanity Law: A New Interpretive Lens on the International Sphere’ (2008–9) 77 Fordham L. Rev. 667Google Scholar.
22 Ibid., at 668–9.
23 Ibid., at 668–9.
24 Ibid., at 669.
25 Ibid., at 673.
26 Ibid.
27 Ibid.
28 Ibid., at 674.
29 Ibid.
30 Ibid.
31 Ibid., at 679.
32 See ibid., at 677. See H. L. A. Hart, The Concept of Law (1961), at 228–31.
33 See Teitel, supra note 21, at 679.
34 Ibid., at 679, citing Meron, T., ‘Revival of Customary Humanitarian Law’, (2005) 99 Am. J. Int’l L. 817CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 817.
35 Teitel, supra note 21, at 680.
36 Ibid., at 683.
37 Ibid., at 691.
38 Ibid., at 691.
39 See Teitel supra, note 1, at 145.
40 Ibid., at 170.
41 Ibid., at 171.
42 Ibid., at 174.
43 Ibid., at ix.
44 Ibid.
45 Ibid., at 8.
46 Ibid., at 9.
47 Ibid., at 65.
48 E.g., ibid., at 13.
49 Ibid., at 60.
50 Ibid., at 61.
51 Ibid.
52 Ibid., at 67.
53 Ibid.
54 Ibid., at 81.
55 Ibid., at 174.
56 Ibid., at 83
57 Ibid., at 91.
58 Ibid.
59 Ibid., emphasis in original.
60 Stahn, C., ‘Between “Faith” and “Facts”: By What Standards Should We Assess International Criminal Justice?’, (2012) 25 LJIL 251CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 253.
61 See Teitel, supra note 1, at 121.
62 B. V. A. Röling, International Law in an Expanded World (1960).
63 See Teitel, supra note 1, at 123.
64 H. Lauterpacht, The Function of Law in the International Community (1933), at 134.
65 M. Koskenniemi, J. Crawford, and M. Young (eds.), The Function of Law in the International Community: An Anniversary Symposium (2008), Proceedings of the 25th Anniversary Conference of the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, 15, available at http://moot.law.cam.ac.uk/Media/25_anniversary/Koskenniemi_paper.pdf, also published as The Function of Law in the International Community: 75 Years After, (2008) 79 British Year Book of International Law 353.
66 Meron, supra note 3.
67 Ibid., at 276.
68 Ibid.
69 Ibid.
70 Ibid., at 278.
71 Ibid.
72 Meron, T., ‘Revival of Customary Humanitarian Law’, (2005) 99 American Journal of International Law 817CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 817.
73 Teitel, supra note 21, at 679.
74 See Meron, supra note 72, at 817.
75 Ibid., at 820.
76 Henckaerts, J.-M. and Doswald-Beck, L. (eds.), Customary International Humanitarian Law (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
77 See Meron, supra note 72, at 817, fn. 3.
78 Ibid., at 820.
79 Meron, supra note 4.
80 Ibid., at 16–29, 50–5.
81 Ibid., at 91–181, particularly 110–18.
82 Ibid., at 247, 256–65.
83 Ibid., at 251.
84 Ibid., at 188.
85 Prosecutor v. Tadić, Decision on Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, Case No. IT-94-1, 2 October 1995, para. 97.
86 See Teitel, supra note 1, at 151.
87 See Dworkin, R. ‘Law as Interpretation’, (1982) 9 (1)Critical Inquiry 179CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
88 See Teitel, supra note 1, at 140–1.
89 Teitel supra note 7, at 387.
90 Meron, T. and Rosas, A., ‘A Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards’, (1991) 85 (2)American Journal of International Law 375CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 375.
- 1
- Cited by