This article may be used for research, teaching and study purposes, as long as it is properly ref... more This article may be used for research, teaching and study purposes, as long as it is properly referred to. The Rowaq Arabi editors make every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information contained in the journal. However, the editors and the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness or suitability for any purpose of the content. Any views expressed in this publication are the views of the authors and not necessarily the views of the editors of Rowaq Arabi or the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies.
The modern political question doctrine has long been criticized for shielding the political branc... more The modern political question doctrine has long been criticized for shielding the political branches from proper judicial scrutiny and allowing the courts to abdicate their responsibilities. Critics of the doctrine thus cheered when the Supreme Court, in Zivotofsky I, announced a narrowing of the doctrine. Their joy though may have been short-lived. Almost immediately, Zivotofsky II demonstrated the dark side of judicial review of the separation of powers between Congress and the President: deciding separations of powers cases may permanently cut one of the political branches out of certain debates. Judicial scrutiny in a particular case could eliminate political scrutiny in many future ones.A return to the old political question doctrine, with its obsequious deference to political branch decisions, is not the answer. Instead, what is needed is a politics-reinforcing political question doctrine that can balance the need for robust review with the desire for robust debate. The uncertain boundaries between the political branches\u27 overlapping powers create space for political debate. Their overlapping powers allow different groups to access the political system and have a voice on policy. Deciding separation of powers questions once-and-for-all can shut off those access points, shutting down political debate. A politics-reinforcing political question doctrine preserves the space in the political system for those debates by turning the pre-Zivotofsky political question doctrine on its head. Whereas the pre-Zivotofsky political question suggested abstention when the branches were in agreement and scrutiny when they were opposed, a politics-reinforcing political question doctrine suggests the opposite, allowing live debates to continue while scrutinizing political settlements. In so doing, it brings pluralism and politics back into the political question analysis, encouraging democracy rather than deference
Thanks to the United States, the WTO Appellate Body can no longer hear appeals. Having blocked al... more Thanks to the United States, the WTO Appellate Body can no longer hear appeals. Having blocked all appointments to the body, the United States has left its bench empty, with no members to fulfill its role. Among the United States’ justifications: The Appellate Body’s adoption of an apparent doctrine of precedent. This chapter takes a deeper look at the fight over precedent at the WTO, both as a case study in the emergence and operation of precedent within international law and as a microcosm of the cultural conflicts playing out within the WTO. The chapter develops an account of precedent as a product of three overlapping, inter-dependent, and mutually constructed logics: (1) the jurisprudential, (2) the rational, and (3) the sociological. It then uses these three logics to retell the story of precedent at the WTO – the emerging patterns of argumentative practice, the Appellate Body’s adoption of a doctrinal test, and the escalating U.S. opposition to the “cogent reasons” standard that body applied. Seeing the fight over precedent as a function of all three logics reveals the real cultural fights for control of the WTO community of practice. Seeing that community of practice coalesce around and split over unwritten practices of precedent reveals how international law develops as much as a function of culture, training, and practice as of rules and power.
A danger, an opportunity, passé, a cliché, destabilizing, empowering, destructive, creative: Depe... more A danger, an opportunity, passé, a cliché, destabilizing, empowering, destructive, creative: Depending on whom you ask, fragmentation has meant any and all of these for international law. The concept of fragmentation has been a mirror reflecting international lawyers’ perception of themselves, their field, and its prospects for the future. This chapter chronicles fragmentation’s meanings over the past few decades. In particular, it focuses on the spreading fears of fragmentation around the millennium, how the fears were eventually repurposed, where, speculatively, those fear may have gone, and how and to what extent faith in international law was restored
This chapter explores international law in search of its hidden and not-so-hidden metaphors. Alon... more This chapter explores international law in search of its hidden and not-so-hidden metaphors. Along the way, it discovers a world inhabited by states, where rules are picked when ripe, where trade keeps boats forever afloat on rising tides. But it also unveils a world in which voices are silenced, inequality ignored, and hands washed of responsibility. Part of a shared cognitive system, metaphors provide a language to describe the law’s operation, help international lawyers identify legal subjects and doctrinal categories, and provide normative justifications for the law. Exploring metaphors’ operation at these levels, this chapter describes how metaphors help construct a shared, tangible universe of legal meaning. But it also reveals how metaphors help hide international law’s dark side, blind international lawyers to alternative worlds, and prejudge legal outcomes. Metaphors, key, nearly invisible building blocks of the international law we know, become key also to its demolition, ...
become common to talk in terms of the "disaggregated state," 5 and of how various substate actors... more become common to talk in terms of the "disaggregated state," 5 and of how various substate actors-central bankers, 6 regulators, 7 judges, 8 and military personnel 9-shape international law and policy through their interactions with each other. Nor have international lawyers ever been particularly shy about their importance to international law. Oscar Schacter famously described "the professional community of international lawyers. .. though dispersed throughout the world and engaged in diverse occupations" as "a kind of invisible college dedicated to a common intellectual enterprise." 10 Martti Koskenniemi has written that "[w]ithout international lawyers, there would have been no international law." 11 The Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) even recognizes the "teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law." 12 And yet, few have focused on the 5. See generally ANNE-MARIE SLAUGHTER, NEW WORLD ORDER (2004) (describing global governance as an international web of government networks); Peter J. Spiro, Disaggregating U.S. Interests in International Law, 67 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 195 (2004) (discussing the subnational and transnational forces and actors that weave the United States into the fabric of international regimes). 6. See generally CHRIS BRUMMER, SOFT LAW AND THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL SYSTEM: RULE MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY (2012) (considering the various actors who play roles in international financial architecture and who create international financial rules);
Legitimacy and International Courts examines the underpinnings of legitimacy, or the justificatio... more Legitimacy and International Courts examines the underpinnings of legitimacy, or the justification of the authority, of international courts and tribunals. It brings together an esteemed group of authors, noted for both their expertise in individual courts, tribunals, or other adjudicatory bodies, and their work on legitimacy, effectiveness, and governance more broadly, to consider the legitimacy of international courts from a comparative perspective. Authors explore what strengthens and weakens the legitimacy of various different international courts, while also considering broader theories of international court legitimacy. Some chapters highlight the sociological or normative legitimacy of specific courts or tribunals, while others address cross-cutting issues such as representation, democracy, independence and effectiveness. This Introduction surveys some of the key contributions of this volume and distills some of the lessons of its varied chapters for the legitimacy of international courts. Parts II and III are largely conceptual in approach, exploring what legitimacy means for each and all of the courts. Part IV takes a more functional approach, exploring how various factors internal or external to particular courts have contributed to those courts’ normative or sociological legitimacy. Part V provides thumbnail summaries of each the chapters that follow.
What happens to international institutions when expectations about their function and purpose shi... more What happens to international institutions when expectations about their function and purpose shift? Must such institutions give way as states reconsider the settlements on which those institutions are based, or can they adapt (or be adapted) to new geopolitical realities? Or to put it most bluntly, as the geopolitical balance of power shifts, must law give way to power? At a very deep level, these are the questions animating Gregory Shaffer's "Governing the Interface of U.S.-China Trade Relations," published in the American Journal of International Law. 1 As the ballooning rivalry between the United States and China stretches and strains institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO), Shaffer remains committed to the idea that law can help manage interstate relationships, contain disagreements, and even maintain the peace. Adopting a pragmatic approach that takes all parties' concerns seriously, Shaffer sketches out how existing rules might be adapted, amended, or supplemented to create an "interface," a mechanism for managing expectations, airing disagreements, limiting unnecessary harm or collateral damage, and most of all, restoring trust. In an era of rising uncertainty about existing international institutions, Shaffer expresses faith in the power of international law. The participants in this symposium all share Shaffer's faith, even as they critique particular aspects of his proposal. In their common effort to find a basis for trust between the United States, China, and the rest of the world through institutions, all might be seen as part of a common project Shaffer would likely endorse. The current plight of the WTO is an abject lesson in the ways legal rules rely for success on unspoken, shared expectations about their use, application, and function. An institution like the WTO reflects a series of settlements over time between its various members, negotiated understandings about their relationships to one another that are committed to paper in only very limited ways. Members have expectations about outcomes-how the rules will foster development, increase prosperity, improve the lives of their citizens, or maintain or enhance their position in the world. Those expectations are bound up with expectations of application-expectations about which policies the members are agreeing to discipline and which they are not. Expectations about the scope of activity covered by a trade agreement-the space left for social policy, public investment, national security, unilateral safeguards-are all part of the settlement(s) embodied by the WTO, even as they are left unwritten in the space between the lines of agreement text. So long as the WTO agreements seem to be applied in such a way as to embody those expectations, recourse to the agreements' provisions can be a source of trust in the relations between states. Recourse to the agreements is recourse to members' shared understandings. But with technological and geopolitical shifts have come shifts in members' expectations. Changes in the technologies of production and transportation have shifted expectations about who will benefit from trade agreements. Changes in information technologies have shifted expectations about the line between economics and security. Impacts on the environment are shifting expectations about the meaning of prosperity and welfare.
One of the most noted developments in international law over the past twenty years is the prolife... more One of the most noted developments in international law over the past twenty years is the proliferation of international courts and tribunals. They decide who has the right to exploit natural resources, define the scope of human rights, delimit international boundaries and determine when the use of force is prohibited. As the number and influence of international courts grow, so too do challenges to their legitimacy. This volume provides new interdisciplinary insights into international courts\u27 legitimacy: what drives and undermines the legitimacy of these bodies? How do drivers change depending on the court concerned? What is the link between legitimacy, democracy, effectiveness and justice? Top international experts analyse legitimacy for specific international courts, as well as the links between legitimacy and cross-cutting themes. Failure to understand and respond to legitimacy concerns can endanger both the courts and the law they interpret and apply. Experts in various fields analyse the meaning of legitimacy and its link to justice, democracy and effectiveness Features in-depth case-studies which outline the legitimacy challenges faced by international courts and offers lessons on how to approach them Will appeal to those seeking to deepen their understanding of legitimacy in the context of specific courts and across the field of international courts and tribunalshttps://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/books/1151/thumbnail.jp
Is American international law distinctly legal realist? The claim is often made, but underexplore... more Is American international law distinctly legal realist? The claim is often made, but underexplored. What would it mean for American international law scholarship and practice to be legal realist in its orientation? Where would such an orientation come from, and what do those origin stories mean for current international law work? Are there common realist-inspired approaches within the varied schools of American international law scholarship? Does wielding those approaches produce distinctly American views on international law doctrine, its operation, or its function? And if American international law scholarship and practice is, in these ways, somewhat distinct, what does it mean for the broader, global project of international law? This chapter takes the claim seriously and explores the ways in which American international law may in fact be tinged with legal realism. It explores how a number of intellectual trends—American jurisprudential legal realism, post-World War II international relations scholarship, utopian strands in American foreign policy thinking, and U.S.-specific foreign relations law—converged to bring a series of specific methods or attitudes to the forefront in American approaches international law. Perhaps provocatively, this chapter argues that all the major schools of American international law—New Haven, International Legal Process, Transnational Legal Process, Law and Economics, International Relations and International Law, and others—have picked up these methods, attitudes, or approaches—enough to warrant labeling all of them as essentially “legal realist.” And it explores how legal realism translates into four noticeable trends in American approaches to international law: (1) a focus on norms rather than rules, (2) a focus on process rather than doctrine, (3) a focus on institutions and power rather than substantive rules, and (4) an emphasis on pragmatism and practicality.
This volume includes chapters from an exciting group of scholars at the cutting edge of their fie... more This volume includes chapters from an exciting group of scholars at the cutting edge of their fields to present a multi-disciplinary look at how international law shapes behavior. Contributors present overviews of the progress established fields have made in analyzing questions of interest, as well as speculations on the questions or insights that emerging methods might raise. In some chapters, there is a focus on how a particular method might raise or help answer questions, while others focus on a particular international law topic by drawing from a variety of fields through a multi-method approach to highlight how these fields may come together in a single project. Still others use behavioral insights as a form of critique to highlight the blind spots and related mistakes in more traditional analyses of the law. Throughout this volume, authors present creative, insightful, challenges to traditional international law scholarship.
This article may be used for research, teaching and study purposes, as long as it is properly ref... more This article may be used for research, teaching and study purposes, as long as it is properly referred to. The Rowaq Arabi editors make every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information contained in the journal. However, the editors and the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness or suitability for any purpose of the content. Any views expressed in this publication are the views of the authors and not necessarily the views of the editors of Rowaq Arabi or the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies.
The modern political question doctrine has long been criticized for shielding the political branc... more The modern political question doctrine has long been criticized for shielding the political branches from proper judicial scrutiny and allowing the courts to abdicate their responsibilities. Critics of the doctrine thus cheered when the Supreme Court, in Zivotofsky I, announced a narrowing of the doctrine. Their joy though may have been short-lived. Almost immediately, Zivotofsky II demonstrated the dark side of judicial review of the separation of powers between Congress and the President: deciding separations of powers cases may permanently cut one of the political branches out of certain debates. Judicial scrutiny in a particular case could eliminate political scrutiny in many future ones.A return to the old political question doctrine, with its obsequious deference to political branch decisions, is not the answer. Instead, what is needed is a politics-reinforcing political question doctrine that can balance the need for robust review with the desire for robust debate. The uncertain boundaries between the political branches\u27 overlapping powers create space for political debate. Their overlapping powers allow different groups to access the political system and have a voice on policy. Deciding separation of powers questions once-and-for-all can shut off those access points, shutting down political debate. A politics-reinforcing political question doctrine preserves the space in the political system for those debates by turning the pre-Zivotofsky political question doctrine on its head. Whereas the pre-Zivotofsky political question suggested abstention when the branches were in agreement and scrutiny when they were opposed, a politics-reinforcing political question doctrine suggests the opposite, allowing live debates to continue while scrutinizing political settlements. In so doing, it brings pluralism and politics back into the political question analysis, encouraging democracy rather than deference
Thanks to the United States, the WTO Appellate Body can no longer hear appeals. Having blocked al... more Thanks to the United States, the WTO Appellate Body can no longer hear appeals. Having blocked all appointments to the body, the United States has left its bench empty, with no members to fulfill its role. Among the United States’ justifications: The Appellate Body’s adoption of an apparent doctrine of precedent. This chapter takes a deeper look at the fight over precedent at the WTO, both as a case study in the emergence and operation of precedent within international law and as a microcosm of the cultural conflicts playing out within the WTO. The chapter develops an account of precedent as a product of three overlapping, inter-dependent, and mutually constructed logics: (1) the jurisprudential, (2) the rational, and (3) the sociological. It then uses these three logics to retell the story of precedent at the WTO – the emerging patterns of argumentative practice, the Appellate Body’s adoption of a doctrinal test, and the escalating U.S. opposition to the “cogent reasons” standard that body applied. Seeing the fight over precedent as a function of all three logics reveals the real cultural fights for control of the WTO community of practice. Seeing that community of practice coalesce around and split over unwritten practices of precedent reveals how international law develops as much as a function of culture, training, and practice as of rules and power.
A danger, an opportunity, passé, a cliché, destabilizing, empowering, destructive, creative: Depe... more A danger, an opportunity, passé, a cliché, destabilizing, empowering, destructive, creative: Depending on whom you ask, fragmentation has meant any and all of these for international law. The concept of fragmentation has been a mirror reflecting international lawyers’ perception of themselves, their field, and its prospects for the future. This chapter chronicles fragmentation’s meanings over the past few decades. In particular, it focuses on the spreading fears of fragmentation around the millennium, how the fears were eventually repurposed, where, speculatively, those fear may have gone, and how and to what extent faith in international law was restored
This chapter explores international law in search of its hidden and not-so-hidden metaphors. Alon... more This chapter explores international law in search of its hidden and not-so-hidden metaphors. Along the way, it discovers a world inhabited by states, where rules are picked when ripe, where trade keeps boats forever afloat on rising tides. But it also unveils a world in which voices are silenced, inequality ignored, and hands washed of responsibility. Part of a shared cognitive system, metaphors provide a language to describe the law’s operation, help international lawyers identify legal subjects and doctrinal categories, and provide normative justifications for the law. Exploring metaphors’ operation at these levels, this chapter describes how metaphors help construct a shared, tangible universe of legal meaning. But it also reveals how metaphors help hide international law’s dark side, blind international lawyers to alternative worlds, and prejudge legal outcomes. Metaphors, key, nearly invisible building blocks of the international law we know, become key also to its demolition, ...
become common to talk in terms of the "disaggregated state," 5 and of how various substate actors... more become common to talk in terms of the "disaggregated state," 5 and of how various substate actors-central bankers, 6 regulators, 7 judges, 8 and military personnel 9-shape international law and policy through their interactions with each other. Nor have international lawyers ever been particularly shy about their importance to international law. Oscar Schacter famously described "the professional community of international lawyers. .. though dispersed throughout the world and engaged in diverse occupations" as "a kind of invisible college dedicated to a common intellectual enterprise." 10 Martti Koskenniemi has written that "[w]ithout international lawyers, there would have been no international law." 11 The Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) even recognizes the "teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law." 12 And yet, few have focused on the 5. See generally ANNE-MARIE SLAUGHTER, NEW WORLD ORDER (2004) (describing global governance as an international web of government networks); Peter J. Spiro, Disaggregating U.S. Interests in International Law, 67 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 195 (2004) (discussing the subnational and transnational forces and actors that weave the United States into the fabric of international regimes). 6. See generally CHRIS BRUMMER, SOFT LAW AND THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL SYSTEM: RULE MAKING IN THE 21ST CENTURY (2012) (considering the various actors who play roles in international financial architecture and who create international financial rules);
Legitimacy and International Courts examines the underpinnings of legitimacy, or the justificatio... more Legitimacy and International Courts examines the underpinnings of legitimacy, or the justification of the authority, of international courts and tribunals. It brings together an esteemed group of authors, noted for both their expertise in individual courts, tribunals, or other adjudicatory bodies, and their work on legitimacy, effectiveness, and governance more broadly, to consider the legitimacy of international courts from a comparative perspective. Authors explore what strengthens and weakens the legitimacy of various different international courts, while also considering broader theories of international court legitimacy. Some chapters highlight the sociological or normative legitimacy of specific courts or tribunals, while others address cross-cutting issues such as representation, democracy, independence and effectiveness. This Introduction surveys some of the key contributions of this volume and distills some of the lessons of its varied chapters for the legitimacy of international courts. Parts II and III are largely conceptual in approach, exploring what legitimacy means for each and all of the courts. Part IV takes a more functional approach, exploring how various factors internal or external to particular courts have contributed to those courts’ normative or sociological legitimacy. Part V provides thumbnail summaries of each the chapters that follow.
What happens to international institutions when expectations about their function and purpose shi... more What happens to international institutions when expectations about their function and purpose shift? Must such institutions give way as states reconsider the settlements on which those institutions are based, or can they adapt (or be adapted) to new geopolitical realities? Or to put it most bluntly, as the geopolitical balance of power shifts, must law give way to power? At a very deep level, these are the questions animating Gregory Shaffer's "Governing the Interface of U.S.-China Trade Relations," published in the American Journal of International Law. 1 As the ballooning rivalry between the United States and China stretches and strains institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO), Shaffer remains committed to the idea that law can help manage interstate relationships, contain disagreements, and even maintain the peace. Adopting a pragmatic approach that takes all parties' concerns seriously, Shaffer sketches out how existing rules might be adapted, amended, or supplemented to create an "interface," a mechanism for managing expectations, airing disagreements, limiting unnecessary harm or collateral damage, and most of all, restoring trust. In an era of rising uncertainty about existing international institutions, Shaffer expresses faith in the power of international law. The participants in this symposium all share Shaffer's faith, even as they critique particular aspects of his proposal. In their common effort to find a basis for trust between the United States, China, and the rest of the world through institutions, all might be seen as part of a common project Shaffer would likely endorse. The current plight of the WTO is an abject lesson in the ways legal rules rely for success on unspoken, shared expectations about their use, application, and function. An institution like the WTO reflects a series of settlements over time between its various members, negotiated understandings about their relationships to one another that are committed to paper in only very limited ways. Members have expectations about outcomes-how the rules will foster development, increase prosperity, improve the lives of their citizens, or maintain or enhance their position in the world. Those expectations are bound up with expectations of application-expectations about which policies the members are agreeing to discipline and which they are not. Expectations about the scope of activity covered by a trade agreement-the space left for social policy, public investment, national security, unilateral safeguards-are all part of the settlement(s) embodied by the WTO, even as they are left unwritten in the space between the lines of agreement text. So long as the WTO agreements seem to be applied in such a way as to embody those expectations, recourse to the agreements' provisions can be a source of trust in the relations between states. Recourse to the agreements is recourse to members' shared understandings. But with technological and geopolitical shifts have come shifts in members' expectations. Changes in the technologies of production and transportation have shifted expectations about who will benefit from trade agreements. Changes in information technologies have shifted expectations about the line between economics and security. Impacts on the environment are shifting expectations about the meaning of prosperity and welfare.
One of the most noted developments in international law over the past twenty years is the prolife... more One of the most noted developments in international law over the past twenty years is the proliferation of international courts and tribunals. They decide who has the right to exploit natural resources, define the scope of human rights, delimit international boundaries and determine when the use of force is prohibited. As the number and influence of international courts grow, so too do challenges to their legitimacy. This volume provides new interdisciplinary insights into international courts\u27 legitimacy: what drives and undermines the legitimacy of these bodies? How do drivers change depending on the court concerned? What is the link between legitimacy, democracy, effectiveness and justice? Top international experts analyse legitimacy for specific international courts, as well as the links between legitimacy and cross-cutting themes. Failure to understand and respond to legitimacy concerns can endanger both the courts and the law they interpret and apply. Experts in various fields analyse the meaning of legitimacy and its link to justice, democracy and effectiveness Features in-depth case-studies which outline the legitimacy challenges faced by international courts and offers lessons on how to approach them Will appeal to those seeking to deepen their understanding of legitimacy in the context of specific courts and across the field of international courts and tribunalshttps://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/books/1151/thumbnail.jp
Is American international law distinctly legal realist? The claim is often made, but underexplore... more Is American international law distinctly legal realist? The claim is often made, but underexplored. What would it mean for American international law scholarship and practice to be legal realist in its orientation? Where would such an orientation come from, and what do those origin stories mean for current international law work? Are there common realist-inspired approaches within the varied schools of American international law scholarship? Does wielding those approaches produce distinctly American views on international law doctrine, its operation, or its function? And if American international law scholarship and practice is, in these ways, somewhat distinct, what does it mean for the broader, global project of international law? This chapter takes the claim seriously and explores the ways in which American international law may in fact be tinged with legal realism. It explores how a number of intellectual trends—American jurisprudential legal realism, post-World War II international relations scholarship, utopian strands in American foreign policy thinking, and U.S.-specific foreign relations law—converged to bring a series of specific methods or attitudes to the forefront in American approaches international law. Perhaps provocatively, this chapter argues that all the major schools of American international law—New Haven, International Legal Process, Transnational Legal Process, Law and Economics, International Relations and International Law, and others—have picked up these methods, attitudes, or approaches—enough to warrant labeling all of them as essentially “legal realist.” And it explores how legal realism translates into four noticeable trends in American approaches to international law: (1) a focus on norms rather than rules, (2) a focus on process rather than doctrine, (3) a focus on institutions and power rather than substantive rules, and (4) an emphasis on pragmatism and practicality.
This volume includes chapters from an exciting group of scholars at the cutting edge of their fie... more This volume includes chapters from an exciting group of scholars at the cutting edge of their fields to present a multi-disciplinary look at how international law shapes behavior. Contributors present overviews of the progress established fields have made in analyzing questions of interest, as well as speculations on the questions or insights that emerging methods might raise. In some chapters, there is a focus on how a particular method might raise or help answer questions, while others focus on a particular international law topic by drawing from a variety of fields through a multi-method approach to highlight how these fields may come together in a single project. Still others use behavioral insights as a form of critique to highlight the blind spots and related mistakes in more traditional analyses of the law. Throughout this volume, authors present creative, insightful, challenges to traditional international law scholarship.
Uploads
Papers by Harlan Cohen