Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Adil Haque Profile picture
Adil Haque
@AdHaque110
Professor, @RutgersLaw. Editor, @just_security. Author, Law and Morality at War. "In other work, Kelsen ... agrees with Haque’s position."
Maximilian 🇨🇱🇸🇪🍉🐝🪁 Profile picture 1 subscribed
Jan 29 • 7 tweets • 3 min read
Short 🧵 on the ICJ's order and self-defense.

1. The Court mentions self-defense twice, when it summarizes Israel's arguments (a) that the Court lacks prima facie jurisdiction and (b) that the rights claimed by South Africa are not plausible.

The Court rejected both arguments.
Image
Image 2. When the Court turns to South Africa's request that it order Israel to suspend military operations, the Court does not mention Israel's argument that this order would impair its right of self-defense.

It only mentions Israel's argument that this order would reverse precedent.
Image
Image
Jan 4 • 7 tweets • 4 min read
The Israel-Hamas conflict has not changed IHL itself. But note:

1. The Oct 27 UNGA resolution identified Israel as the occupying Power in Gaza.

Though not conclusive, this is substantial State practice supporting the 'functional' approach to the persistence of occupation.
Image 2. The same UNGA resolution, as well as the Dec. 22 UNSC resolution, affirm that IHL requires both parties to allow and facilitate humanitarian relief.
Image
Image
Dec 7, 2023 • 8 tweets • 3 min read
A few thoughts:

1. All States have a legal obligation to cooperate to bring to an end through lawful means any serious breach by a State of an obligation arising under a peremptory norm of general international law (jus cogens).
Image 2. The basic rules of international humanitarian law are peremptory norms.

For example, the prohibition of starvation is undoubtably a basic rule.

So is wilfully impeding relief supplies short of starvation, I would argue. Image
May 5, 2022 • 11 tweets • 6 min read
Many mistakes in this piece, starting with the title (the Glucksberg test is not originalist).

Small point: "Roe’s embrace of viability ... was directly derived from a highly influential lower-court decision written by Judge Jon O. Newman."

Sort of. 🧵 2. In Abele v. Markle II (1972), Judge Newman argued that the right to abortion logically follows from precedent.

If you have a right to contraception to avoid pregnancy then a fortiori you have a right to abortion to terminate a pregnancy.

The liberty interest is the same.
May 3, 2022 • 4 tweets • 3 min read
The author of Abele v. Markle II (1972), the best abortion rights decision ever written, among other things. ImageImageImageImage This part is my favorite. Profound point, totally lost on the authors of the Dobbs draft. ImageImageImage
May 29, 2021 • 13 tweets • 4 min read
1. Brian's reply to my post on the Al Jalaa tower attack is quite respectful, which I appreciate.

At the same time, Brian makes some mistakes that are worth addressing. 🧵 2. The *tower* was no long a military objective by its *use* if Hamas evacuated it.

That's true even if they left behind *equipment* that was a military objective by its *nature*.

Here, Brian seems to conflate the tower with the equipment: Image
May 27, 2021 • 4 tweets • 2 min read
The IDF’s attack on Al Jalaa Tower wasn't the worst thing it did in Gaza.

But it was illegal.

That seemed worth saying.

My latest @just_security

justsecurity.org/76657/the-idfs… 2. This essay expands on this earlier thread:
May 19, 2021 • 9 tweets • 3 min read
Mike's analysis of the IDF attack on Al Jalaa Tower has many problems. Here are a few🧵

1. The "collateral damage" was not "minimal." There were 60 residential units. The civilians living there lost their homes, their belongings, and some measure of safety from the carnage. 2. Military advantage is assessed *in the circumstances ruling at the time* of the attack.

The IDF says Hamas and IJ *left the building with their equipment.*

The IDF leveled the building anyway.
May 17, 2021 • 10 tweets • 3 min read
International law requires effective advance warning of *otherwise lawful attacks* which nonetheless endanger civilians.

These are not that.

These are not 'warnings'.

These are threats.

Short 🧵 2. The basic point here has been made by others, including by many Palestinians. This is just a more technical legal version. Honestly, any decent person with common sense will find this all obvious.

Feb 24, 2021 • 49 tweets • 4 min read
México opening strong, rejecting the cross-border use of force against NSAs on the premise that the territorial state is 'unwilling or unable' to suppress them. Vietnam obviously agrees, but I didn't hear an unambiguous statement.
Feb 22, 2021 • 4 tweets • 1 min read
Con Law folks: I cut a week of material from my con law theory seminar, so I once again welcome suggested readings, ideally on executive/separation of powers or voting rights in the U.S.

Thanks! P.S. I'm pretty happy with my readings on speech, religion, equality, and criminal justice, but am always open to more possibilities.
Dec 30, 2020 • 22 tweets • 6 min read
1. For my final JUS COGENS THREAD of 2020, I shall reveal the correct answer to the question below. Note: I typically keep my jus cogens threads light. This one is not. But I hope it's interesting.
Dec 17, 2020 • 20 tweets • 7 min read
1. This THREAD has everything.

Jus cogens.

Hans Kelsen.

The Israel-Egypt conflict.

The right of self-defense and Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

Buckle. Up. 🧵 2. On August 1, 1951, the UN Security Council met to discuss "Restrictions imposed by Egypt on the passage of ships through the Suez Canal" bound for Israel.
Dec 14, 2020 • 8 tweets • 3 min read
1. Now that you've all read my latest post on aggression and self-defense, you're no doubt wondering:

WHAT ABOUT JUS COGENS?!

WHERE IS THE JUS COGENS CONTENT WE EXPECT FROM THIS ACCOUNT?!

Well, since you asked ... 2. The thirteen-power draft stated in its preamble that the use of force by one State or a group of States against another State or group of States violated a peremptory norm of international law. Image
Nov 5, 2020 • 7 tweets • 2 min read
Original Generous Purposive Contextual Large and Liberal Originalism (TM) Original No Rigid Hierarchy Among Interpretative Guides Originalism (TM)
Oct 21, 2020 • 20 tweets • 8 min read
Supports my sense that, when original meaning is ambiguous, Barrett will adopt neither a presumption of constitutionality, nor a presumption of liberty. The best understanding controls. Did Mitch Berman write this question?
Oct 12, 2020 • 6 tweets • 2 min read
1. Barrett likely thinks that compliance with international law is not the concern of the judiciary. 2. In 2010, Barrett strongly indicated that she rejects the Charming Betsy canon, that is, "the rule that where one
interpretation of a statute would compromise the international obligations of the United States, the court should adopt any other plausible interpretation."
Oct 12, 2020 • 5 tweets • 3 min read
1. Interestingly, Barrett probably agrees. In 2010, Barrett accepted that statutory textualism was not dictated by original meaning/understanding or historical practice.

scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewconten… 2. At that time, Barrett argued that courts are "faithful agents" of the legislature, and textualism best preserves legislative compromises. Later, her view changed.
Oct 12, 2020 • 4 tweets • 1 min read
1. This is excellent. But.

Yes, Barrett thinks most super-precedents will never come to the Court. Paper money is safe, etc.

But, Barrett shares "the [originalist] commitment to treat the constitutional text as controlling when the question is called." scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewconten… 2. Yes, Barrett thinks overruling precedent requires “both reason giving on the merits and an explanation of why its view is so compelling as to warrant reversal.”

But, its view only needs to be compelling to fellow originalists ("methodological friends" in the literature).
Sep 24, 2020 • 6 tweets • 2 min read
1. The Kentucky AG says: "According to Kentucky law, the use of force by Mattingly and Cosgrove was justified to protect themselves. This justification bars us from pursuing criminal charges in Miss Breonna Taylor's death."

This is incorrect. THREAD.

courier-journal.com/story/news/loc… 2. Under the Kentucky Penal Code (503.120), self-defense is unavailable as a justification in a prosecution for an offense involving wantonness or recklessness toward innocent persons.

apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/statutes/s…
Sep 23, 2020 • 4 tweets • 2 min read
Inclusive legal positivists just letting morality right into the criteria of legal validity

Moral facts absolutely determining legal facts rn