American Journal of International Law

And the Bethlehem Principles, are a perfect example.

So this was an article published by Daniel Bethlehem in the American Journal of International Law in 2012, if I'm looking at it correctly, volume 106.

And so he says, he basically lays out in this article several principles that When I read them, and I reviewed them in advance of our discussion today, I read them as actually reflective of what the law is in practice as it exists today.

And then Agile, American Journal of International Law, thereafter published a series of articles from Michael Glennon, Mary Ellen O'Connell, Gaborona and Rahawala, Dapo Akande, and others responding to the Bethlehem Principles and Daniel's article and his arguments.

If I were to characterize the way that these response articles engage with the Bethlehem Principles, I would say one of the titles is No Thank You to a Radical Rewrite of the Usaid Bellum.

Well, what Daniel was doing, I think, is he was expressing what the law actually is, but it doesn't necessarily comply with the artificially restrictivist understanding of the law.

It's the most wide-ranging and draws little on issues of the Holocaust, so it's a bit of a standalone, primarily a criticism of US foreign policy and based on the legality of the Iraq war.

In essence, claiming that the USA is undermining the international rule of law that it originally hoped to establish, received many plaudits from celebrities, newspapers, academics, and the review I looked at was by Stephen J. Ratner, and he said in the Michigan Journal, he's at the University of Michigan, and he published in the American Journal of International Law, he said that Sands' book is among the most thoughtful critiques of U.S. policy from the Neiman Academy.

either american or european its appeal lies in a combination of erudition and breadth as well as accessibility enhanced with some apt personal anecdotes sands is a true public intellectual and deserves credit for writing a volume that is not targeted at academics alone however he is critical of your book as well He says that it ignores long-term U.S. inherent skepticism of international law and it ignores other countries' violation of it.

And I wondered how you might counter his criticism.