Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSchuck, Peter
dc.date2021-11-25T13:34:18.000
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-26T11:36:31Z
dc.date.available2021-11-26T11:36:31Z
dc.date.issued1999-01-01T00:00:00-08:00
dc.identifierfss_papers/1660
dc.identifier.contextkey1761991
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/905
dc.description.abstractMy article on refugee burden-sharing ("Refugee Burden-Sharing: A Modest Proposal," 22 YALE J. INT'L. L. 243 (1997)) advances a novel approach to an appalling problem that desperately needs all the fresh thinking it can get. Unfortunately, the critique by Deborah Anker, Joan Fitzpatrick, and Andrew Shacknove, "Crisis and Cure: A Reply to Hathaway/Neve and Schuck," 11 HARv. HUM. RTS. J. 295 (1998), while both serious and respectful, misrepresents my proposal in a number of significant respects-misrepresentations that I pointed out to them when they sent me a draft of their critique only days before this draft was to go to the printer. I shall briefly address each of those misrepresentations in the order in which they appear in their critique.
dc.titleA Response to the Critics
dc.source.journaltitleFaculty Scholarship Series
refterms.dateFOA2021-11-26T11:36:31Z
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/1660
dc.identifier.legacyfulltexthttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2682&context=fss_papers&unstamped=1


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
A_Response_to_the_Critics.pdf
Size:
213.6Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record