By Simeon Chavel

Many works collected in the Hebrew Bible present Israel’s god as one who punishes children because of their parents, and entire generations because of their predecessors. Intergenerational punishment is an idea about how Yahweh holds people of Israel and Judea to account for certain offenses, be it the nation as a whole, specific groups within the nation, or individuals.1 Most writings that engage the idea present it positively, as a feature of godly greatness. Two later texts, though, present Judeans criticizing it and Yahweh responding to the criticism, at Jer 31 and Ezek 18. How did the idea that Yahweh behaves this way originate? Why did most writers see it as positive? How did some come to challenge it? And why, for over two thousand years, has it been so misunder- stood – to the persistent denigration of Jews and Judaism?

The Pentateuch and Its Readers, Ed. Joel S. Baden and Jeffrey Stackert, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2023, pp. 285–306

By Audrey Macklin

The human right to leave any country protects an intrinsic interest in free movement and is also a vital pre-condition to seeking asylum. The right to leave attracts little academic interest, but it is quietly being eroded. Exit restrictions in States of origin or transit have become an instrument of extraterritorial migration control for European Union Member States seeking to prevent the arrival of unwanted migrants. This article first explores the revival of exit restrictions, focusing on agreements between European destination States and select African States of departure. It argues that the adoption of exit restrictions from one State to prevent entry to another creates the paradox of seamless borders, where regulation of exit and entry are harmonized and fused to serve the singular objective of preventing entry to the destination State. The article further argues that the political and discursive coupling of anti-smuggling and search-and-rescue regimes occlude the rightsviolating character of exit restrictions and enables breach of the right to leave to hide in plain sight. Additionally, current approaches to jurisdiction and State responsibility in regional and international courts render the prospect of destination State liability uncertain in circumstances where the destination State does not exercise legal and physical control over enforcement. The article draws on ‘crimmigration’ and border criminology literature to identify the common element of carcerality that connects confinement of migrants to the territory of departure States with migrant detention inside the territory. Beyond lamenting the erosion of exit rights, the article concludes by querying whether the erosion of the right to leave is symptomatic of a larger trend toward the regulation of mobility itself.

International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 2024;73(4):891-929.