Kom op, we hebben genoeg fantasie hier
08.03.2026 18:35
👍 0
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
Kom op, we hebben genoeg fantasie hier
Mijn tenen trokken net zo krom dat ze dwars door mijn schoenzolen heen gingen
I sat down with @owenjones.bsky.social to explain the Int’l law on the use of force applicable to the Iran War.
We discussed how the media fails to report not just the facts but the law and what can we do with an int’l law that seems unable to constrain rogue action
youtu.be/rQ5ijD7UMyc?...
"De premier wil niet filosoferen over het de juiste keuze was Iran aan te vallen". Daar is ook weinig gefilosofeer voor nodig @robjetten.bsky.social. In tegenstelling tot over de vraag of Rob Jetten nu premier van Nederland is, of Dilan Yesilgöz.
Je wil Pedro Sanchez, je krijgt de nog goedkopere kloon van Rutte.
In the Hills, the Cities is van eenzaam niveau
Dat bedoel ik - het feit dat ik zit mee te knikken met die column betekent dat er iets serieus mis is.
Serieus. Het is een goed teken als de belangrijkste politieke discussies weer plaatsvinden op de scheidslijn tussen liberalen en sociaaldemocraten, ipv tussen constructieve en rancuneuze politiek.
Ik verlang regelmatig naar de tijden dat ik het nog hartgrondig met Mathijs Bouman oneens was
youtu.be/Ij3ZOO_OpaA?...
Mooi om te zien dat een oud-collega nog steeds scherp is
When the PIL exam questions present themselves
Otto is one of the main reasons I'm teaching international law today - I started as junior lecturer when he was coordinating the same course I am now coordinating myself. Very happy to see he still gives a good example 👇
Bored of Peace
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss 🎵🎶
Het Amerikaanse ministerie van Defensie zet #Anthropic onder druk: volledige toegang tot zijn systemen of zware sancties. De ontwikkelaar van Claude is het enige techbedrijf dat zich verzet. Marten Zwanenburg en @natalihelberger.bsky.social reageren in de media. bit.ly/46FFb58 @ivir-uva.bsky.social
I wrote about this tendency a year or two ago, to have these academic discussions as if they do not relate to real world events and empower bad actors (mostly in the closing paragraphs): opiniojuris.org/2024/10/15/i.... I was hoping it would lose relevance over time but I guess not.
True. I don't follow him as much so I hadn't flagged this yet, but indeed. Another reason I wonder why we got this particular combination of authors - editorial choice maybe? In any case, poor judgment imho.
My best guess is that when you have an administration that has so much disregard for the law that even coming up with the thinnest justification is too much, even serious experts are kinda caught off guard. And you cannot write a blog just repeating "it is bullshit" over and over.
And when I say good, I mean he often writes these rapid response pieces (to the point where "has Marko written about it already" is a bit of a running gag) demolishing flimsy state justifications and giving great real world context. As I think academics should.
Completely. And not for the first time, so I absolutely agree that it is weird for academics to look for justification afterwards, as if that discussion happens in a vacuum. Thing is: Milanovic is normally very good with this stuff, so I wonder why he wrote this now.
That said, I am *not* claiming this is fair and just or that legality (at least under IHL) means we just have to accept it. I also wonder about the reasons for this more theoretical exercise, the authors are engaging in. It also does not sit really well with me.
Vice versa, the moment the US struck Iran, Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth also became legimitate targets under IHL. Not that it matters in practice (or rhetorically) but that is the other side of the coin in legal terms.
There are good reasons why LOAC is agnostic in terms of who started, because it is hard to have reciprocal rules when one side can claim to be "right" in their exercise of force.
That is not what it says actually. The weirdness of ad bellum and in bello law is that they can come to different conclusions on specific conduct. That Khamenei might be a legal target once the conflict starts does not mean it is lawful under other frameworks.
(to be fair, I think Marco often does exemplary work pointing out very clearly and without equivocating when states come up with bullshit excuses for illegal behaviour, but this particular piece was not really necessary)
Imma quote myself here for a moment: It is easy to have these discussions purely in the abstract, without properly accounting for the consequences. But states and other parties to this conflict are reading this too. opiniojuris.org/2024/10/15/i...
Sorry I'm not more open-minded about LLMs, it's just some fucking maniacs shoveled out a bunch of useless bloatware featuring that technology, did not give me any chance to opt out, reorganized the entire economy around it, zeroed out gains made by green energy, and made it impossible to buy RAM
Nederland: we hebben begrip, we zijn voorzichtig, we houden juridische kaders in het oog
Pete Hegseth: Death. Fury. Destruction. We will kill them all. Torpedos in everybody's houses. Missiles on every street corner. We will kick them when they're down. No one will escape. Everyone dead. God bless.
Also the oxymoron of tomorrow. And tomorrow. And tomorrow.