COVID-19 and The Populist Governments Approach to Pandemic Management: A Nuanced Analysis

This article addresses international law discourse in the post- COVID-19 era. The first part engages with questions about China, its liability, and the complex legal discourse on causation. The present position of the WHO is that COVID-19 is a zoonotic virus like SARS. The nature of the spillover event remains unclear, but the first human case was identified at some point in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. For the reasons outlined in Part I, the scholarly consensus has been that claims against China appear unjustifiable. The two case studies in Part II demonstrate the factors involved in local pandemic management in two major countries, the United Kingdom and India. Part III discusses the issues of multiple causes and overdetermination, discourse on international law, and the resumption of progress

The Continuing Influence of Kelsen on the General Perception of the Discipline of International Law

The article explores the contribution of the purity of Kelsen's theory of international law to the exclusion of ethics and political analysis from the workfield of the international lawyer. It is argued that Kelsen's own approach is an epistemologically grounded argument against involvement in the emotional dimension of political relations, which he dismisses as irrational. This is what justifies professional evasiveness in the face of the continuing self-assertiveness of the nation-state. Kelsen is now such a formidable obstacle to the development of the discipline because the profession lacks his general intellectual culture and so is unable to question the foundations of his system

Israel’s Legal Right to Exist and the Principle of the Self-determination of the Palestinian People?

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: "Israel’s Legal Right to Exist and the Principle of the Self-determination of the Palestinian People?", which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12007. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving

Carl Schmitt’s Critique of Liberal International Legal Order Between 1933 and 1945

Carl Schmitt was an intellectual who made the discipline of international law grapple with the major issues of his time. His work as an international lawyer remains largely untranslated. It is riddled with racism and anti-Semitism. However, an interest of his work is that it reflects the ‘shadow side’ of contemporary international law, forgotten because the moral defeat of Germany in 1945 was so total. Schmitt argues for an inherent tendency to violence and demonization in Western liberal international law theory and practice. He argues for the acceptance of difference as against homogeneity in world society as the only way to limit this violence. Finally, he argues that the liberal tradition is fundamentally compromised by its own colonialist heritage. Its objections to Nazi Germany translating this colonialist imperialism onto Eastern Europe are incoherent. Schmitt’s avowed racism and anti-Semitism remain shocking. The article does not try to downplay this aspect of his work. However, it is worth noting that his Nazi bosses, for the most part, thought his racism insincere. If any negative spirit imbues the actual technical detail of Schmitt’s work it is his aversion to the West. This probably had its roots in the envy which the Kaiserreich had of the British, French, and American Empires while Schmitt was growing to maturity