love being in a space where someone will just look over my shoulder and be like 'is that the Ancillary Justice cover art as your desktop background' with an immediate segue into talking about Glasshouse by Charles Stross. very real "I am among my people" moment.
america has spent the last several decades with its focus on the middle east. i'm hoping in the coming years we see a shift in focus to the americas (north and south) and asia.
genuine question - if South Africa's genocide case against Israel at the ICJ is successful in getting the ICJ to be like 'ok, you have to stop killing now until we sort this out', and Israel were like 'ehh i don't feel like it' and carried on as they have since October, what happens? whose job is it to actually enforce that? even within this system, can't the US just use its security council power to veto any judgement against Israel?
like, what mechanism would make the ICJ declaring 'yes, this is definitely legally a genocide' more forceful as a speech act than say, someone writing 'this is a genocide' in a newspaper? or is that basically all it is, a kind of theatre to make that accusation more public?
apparently the ICJ ruled against the US in favour of Nicaragua in 1986, ordering the US to give reparations for the whole contras thing. the US completely vetoed the judgement. and much more recently they also ruled in favour of Ukraine against Russia in 2023 and Russia don't seem too worried about that. in the absence of a 'monopoly on legitimate force' that can enforce its rulings, what is even the function of this kind of court?
I feel like my model of this whole machinery must be too crude somehow, because clearly South Africa's gov hope to get something out of winning this case.
Every time I go watch all the Seb edits in my tiktok folder, I just realize how much of a menace I'm going to be when I get to watching 2010. I really am not mentally prepared for the 2010-2013 seasons, I think I will actually explode from how much I love him 😭 I chose to go with 2009 to kinda lean in slowly to the Seb years, but I realized, he's DNFed in both races so far, so I've been spared from the inevitable combustion you guys will witness once he actually gets a podium sjdjkff
Australia to offer residency to Tuvalu citizens displaced by climate change
This should've been done over a decade ago. But before Albanese government we had a government that refused to do anything about global warming in the form of the Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison government. Before them was the timid Rudd/Gillard government. Before that was the outright climate denialist Howard government.
Make no mistake this is a bare minimum. Australia should offer refuge to all citizens of the Pacific Island nations & to the Maldives. They are sinking beneath the waves too.
The fact is that this is largely our nations fault (yeah, I'm from Australia). We were the ones who mined the coal & natural gas. The amount we burnt onshore was more than all the Pacific Islander nations combined. Much more was burnt offshore & isn't in our official tally, even though it couldn't be burnt without our mining. We have a duty at bare minimum to save these people from the consequences of our actions, because its mostly our actions that have doomed their lands, not their own.
I doubt this will happen. Albanese made this deal more out of a desire to contain China than out of a desire to make amends for rising sea levels. The people of Tuvalu benefit yes, but it's more a side-effect of that goal of containing China. I'm not saying we shouldn't contain China, we should, not enough to spark war, but enough to get them to back off from Taiwan. I'm saying that letting people leave their sinking lands to get residency here shouldn't be tied into that containment. At least it's something.