Search results

the question is, how do we bring people together in order to solve them. that means developing international law, institutions, etc. none of that is a givent, but its also the only way we can solve them.

where international institutions fail, there's a crisis. atm, that includes the climate. it doesn't have to be this way.

crises are those things outside of the playbook

ok, so what do you want to see happen, wrt the international community?

which was?

otherwise it wouldnt be a crisis

any crisis is necessarily one in which international law cannot be the solution

why is this the criterea?

I don't see how you can object to what israel is doing, then. it's every state for itself, might makes right. why shouldnt israel take whatever steps it thinks are necessary.

you're just opting out ex ante of a any kind of possible solution. we can build institutions, we have too.

intra-state coordination--aka International law--is a prerequisite to solving any truly global scale crisis

lets also remember that we're expecting international coordination to the climate crisis. where is this going to come from if not International institutions which apparently don't mean anything.

I mean, lets say you're right, fuck what people think. why shouldn't isreal simply flatten gaza? wouldn't that solve all of their problems?

but clearly they do. why havent they pushed gaza into the sea. its precisely bc its unjustifiable. it's *why* there's no resolution to the confilct with hamas.

either way, it's purely hypothetical. I was just saying that's why it's so frustrating, we're just repeating the same errors over and over.

so what are the alternatives? anarchy and might is right at the level of the state!

As I said, I agree. International law is extremely weak-sauce. I'm an IR realist. But what actually is international law? We're talking about constructing a system without a sovereign power in which we all have buy-in to a set of conventions. We can do this but its not trivial. Think about the...

I was trying to draw an analogy between this and 9/11. You probably have to go back 20 pages to reach it, so understandable that you didn't see it. But consider the US. Has the US benefited from its response to 9/11? Maybe. But, might it have benefitted more from a response which drew upon the...

but, does it actually make sense from a strategic point of view. that depends on what your ultimate end is.

I agree with you, it is unrealistic