I want to make the below thread more concrete and, in the process, to accentuate what I take to be the enormous challenge before us.
So, here’s a second thread that starts by drawing on my work with Ingrid Brunk on annexations @ajil.bsky.social. 1/ 🧵
So, here’s a second thread that starts by drawing on my work with Ingrid Brunk on annexations @ajil.bsky.social. 1/ 🧵
Reposted from
Monica Hakimi
Anyone who’s been paying attention to the news knows that the intl order is undergoing dramatic change.
Now, after years of seemingly trying to preserve (or at least give lip service to) the old ways of doing business, the US is openly accelerating—and itself an agent for—disruptive change. 1/ 🧶
Now, after years of seemingly trying to preserve (or at least give lip service to) the old ways of doing business, the US is openly accelerating—and itself an agent for—disruptive change. 1/ 🧶
Comments
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-journal-of-international-law/article/prohibition-of-annexations-and-the-foundations-of-modern-international-law/5B8951966A835F496404082ED5EB426A
2. A peace project: to limit violence between states;
3. An emancipatory, self-determination project: to enable peoples to advance their own conceptions of the good within their political institutions. 3/
But because the prohibition of annexations undergirds each of them, the erosion of this one, foundational norm will put pressure on and is likely to degrade each of the others. 4/
Let me unpack what I mean, because some will want to resist or evade this truth. 5/