tdaxp has a mole!

Faithful tdaxp reader Catholicgauze has entered DC and acquired an (albeit temporary) position at a “non-political” institution in that city. Catholicgauze was kind enough to provide the blogosphere with some photos of an anti-war demonstration

Anarchists: The Scary Kind

Anarchists: The Even Scarier Kind

Bush, Cheney, Rummi, and Rice are
mass murderers and the Illuminati
They planned & executed 9-11
Arrest Them Now

From a departmental email:

Greetings!

Many of you will have already received information regarding the campus visit next week of Emma Pérez, Professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado – Boulder.

During her two days on the UNL campus, Professor Pérez will meet with groups of faculty and guest lecture in classes. She will also give a public talk on Thursday September 29th in the City Campus Union on the topic of “Decolonizing the University for Ethnic Studies”. This event will begin with an informal reception and book display at 3 p.m., followed by the formal talk at 3:30 p.m. We recognize that you may be too busy to attend this event, but are asking that you encourage attendance at Dr. Pérez’s talk by informing administrators, faculty, staff, and students in your units of this event.

Dr. Pérez’s visit is being organized by Amelia Montes, who submitted a grant to the Convocations Committee and obtained co-sponsorship from multiple departments and programs. The Institute for Ethnic Studies [lol -- acronym is UNLies -- -- tdaxp] is one of the units co-sponsoring Professor Pérez’s visit. Please contact either of us for more information about this event.

Thank you for help in publicizing this important event.

Sincerely,
Marcela Raffaelli, Ph.D. Professor,
Psychology and Ethnic Studies Director,
Institute for Ethnic Studies
321 Burnett Hall
University of Nebraska
Lincoln, NE 68588-0308
(402) 472-0737 (office)
(402) 472-4637 (fax)
mraffaelli1@unl.edu

Amelia Maria de la Luz Montes, Ph.D Assistant Professor,
English & Ethnic Studies
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
202 Andrews Hall
P.O. Box 880333
Lincoln, NE 68588-0333
(402)472-8291

UN Charter
Chapter VI: peaceful settlement of disputes (nonbinding)
Chapter VII: enforcement (binding)

Article II/4 “All members… shall refrain from force”
permitted action: self-defense after armed attack (51)

3 Situations for Lawful Self-Defense
1) if an armed attack has occured (whether by state or non-state party)
2) imminent threat of armed attack (Carrolene case from 19th century, US v. Canada/UK)
3) “anticipatory self-defense” – six day war – UNSC didn’t condemn — so assent through silence?
Bush) right to use force without imminent threat of attack?

Remember, question of “Recourse to War” different from “Conduct of War”

John Yew (former DOJ) argues Iraq was in material breach — defends war that war

The Two “Legally Binding” UN actions:
Chapter VII (from UNSC)
Budget & “Contributions” (from General Assembly)

In Cuban Missle Crisis, Abraham Sheas – legal advisor to State Department — creatively used the law to help his department

battling ideas: “The Ideas that Conquered the World”

“clear and present danger” == “imminment danger” (?)

How do “no fly zones” work with “quarantines” — ambiguous non-interventions?

legal standing of nontechnocratic/nonindustrialized great power force exchange?

q: do military alliances contradict the logic of global collective security?

UNSCR 1441 “perfect example of diplomatic ambiguity”

ICJ “less political” / “more legal” than UNSC because ICJ decisions “should be” taking only legal reasoning into account

battlespaces:

legal refers to rule of law
political refers to rule of ???? (power?)

“New Haven School of International Law” explicitly shows judges as politicla operators, politicals in the context of laws
Article XXV – states shall carry about decisions of the UNSC made under Chapter VII
“law exists to enhance sense of obligation” — social pychology / social cognition implications?

In Libya case, ICJ acted as if it could review UNSCRs — but upheld the UNSCR
but, has UNSC ever acted as if it could review ICJ decisions?
Libya case was similar to Marbury v. Madison

US seems to favor UNSC over ICJ, because UNSC is more useful / US has more influence there
– because ICJ negativist, UNSC positivist?

Legal Status of Humanitarian Intervention
– legally grey & opaque
– on Kosovo, that Russia didn’t get its condemnation passed was backhanded approval? (like Six Day War but moreso?)

R2P: Canada’s “Responsibility to Protect” report
– argues that state soveregnty implies a responsibility to protect
– but no treat on humanitarian intevention (opposed by Gap / Global South, mostly)
– African Union says humanitarian intervention OK as long as AU approves
– UNSC can authorize anyway under “international peace and security” considerations
– R2P end of Westphalia?

As Kosovo War went on, “dual use” targets were used, North Atlantic Council listened to less, etc

Carlo Deponte, head prosecutor for ICJY, declines to charge NATO personell

“proportionality” is one of the vaguest parts of the law of war

Lecture Notes for Internationa Law *sigh*

World Bank and International Monetary Fund (Bank/Fund or Bunk)
– Bredon Woods / post-War / pre-UN institutions

functionalism – theory of “apolitical” IGOs (inter-governmental organizations) that seeks to build a world community through technical cooperation
– first IGOs like international telegraph, european rivers association in 19th century were functionalist

San Francisco (UN)/Bunk (Breton Woods) built of functionalist, conference, and League of Nations precedents

material for International Law as Social Cognitive Battlespace:

Ikenberry: US created bunk because US can dominate them, plus gives US “credibility”
– “strategic restraint”
– example of creating international law to improve international legitimacy to make it easier to break law later?
– use social cognition to teach cognitively to weak unfavorable social cognition lessons? (eg Kosovo War)
– strategic restrain in Iraq run-up?

conditionality: only loan if conditions are met
built to make America look like “benign hegemon” instead of “threatening dominator”
US only has 17% of votes for bunks, but 85% is minimum “majority” for many actions, so US has de facto veto
with national contributions, WB then uses cash as collatoral to raise more money
yearly, WB gives $40 bil, UN regular budget is $1 bil

Independence of Secretariats: Rules for the World: Barnett and Finnemore claim Bank secretariat weak, donors strong
(interesting research ideas: can you show WB President McNamara going against US and winning?)

Bunk’s constituent documents are explicitly non-political (cannot look at political ramifications)
– WB tried this, got introuble for Portugal and South Africa loans, now is political but denies it
– think of “good governance” requirements: political issues effect “development,” “resonably broad” definitions

trifecta of institution types: technical, legal, political…. are they political or economic (both)
_but_, WB says “No leans for Serbia until Belgrade hands over indicted war criminals to ICJY
similar for WB suspension of loans to Allende
evolving notions of “good governance” – strategic, limited growth of definitions
– WB has tribunal for projects in a country (individual right of petition within the bank) – emerging human rights

right criticism at “socialist” World Bank during ’70s “absolutely crazy” .. “lunatic right” now in office

Traditionally, WB is longer term than IMF, but disction fuzzes from ’70s — both now focus on structural loans

“you bureaucratize to create specific organizations to do a specific job — but mission creep undermines this”

World Trade Organizations (WTO)
trips – intellectual property rights as absolute necessity?
irony: “sanctions for trade”

Hathaway and Koh (306) – why stronger mechanisms to protect trade than human rights/ecology
“constructive engagement” – hypocracy in liberal views of “South Africa” and “China”
US, Russia, China united in opposition to International Criminal Court (ICC), France qualified yes, UK only UNSC5 which fully supports

Law of the Sea
– affects oceans / lots of stuff / has a tribunal
– half of proceeds to developing countries (?!?!?)
– Bush now supporting but GOP Senate opposes?
– US declares parts it like as “customary international law”

“Virtual plague spreading like wildfire in World of Warcraft,” by Jeremy Reimer, ars techncia, 21 September 2005, http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050921-5337.html.

One word: WOW

Players of Blizzard’s incredibly popular World of Warcraft are reporting the outbreak of a virtual plague that is spreading across major cities in the virtual land of Azeroth, infecting player characters at an alarming rate.

The trouble started when Blizzard programmers added a new instance, which is a separate area connected to the outside world that players can enter and attempt unique quests. One of these instances, Zul’Grub, contained the god of blood, Hakkar. Hakkar was a powerful foe that could cast spells of his own, including a spell called Corrupted Blood. This spell did a large amount of damage to any player within the vicinity of the casting, and the effects lingered on after the spell was over.

What happened next was something Blizzard did not expect. Some of the players who had gone into the instance emerged back into the main world of Azeroth, and started spreading the Corrupted Blood disease to others who they came into close contact with. The infection soon spread into many of the cities and towns in the virtual world. Since the disease was intended to be a danger to powerful players, it tended to kill those less than level 50 almost instantly.

Game masters (GMs) tried to quarantine certain players from moving into new areas, but they kept escaping the quarantine and moving on to infect other people. A patch was issued to try and mitigate the damage, but it did not have the desired effect. According to a Blizzard poster on the WoW forums:

It appears that the hotfix remedy concocted to combat the recent Azerothian outbreak has not yielded desired results. At this time, our medical staff is continuing to develop an effective cure. We look forward to ensuring the health and vitality of the citizens of Azeroth in the near future.

The most interesting thing about this “outbreak” is perhaps the reaction it has provoked among WoW players. Instead of being angry about the deleterious effects of a bug, many are treating this as an exciting and unprecedented event in the WoW universe. It would be even more interesting if epidemiologists in the real world found that this event was worthy of studying as a kind of controlled experiment in disease propagation.

tdaxp readers are already familiar with World of Warcraft…

Barnett and Don blog the same thing.
Jeremiah ponders the Eastern Way of War. Certainly worthwhile after this dribble.
Mark Safranski is scary smart.
Nellie Lide learns lessons from the Indian Army
Younghusband reviews The Sling and the Stone

And CGW tries to answer Catholicgauze’s question

Murphy — 2 major ways of creating law without legislatures
– treaties – silence is refusal
– customs – silence is consent
– but — treatiest and customs can intersect

“use cogens” is a rule of law that lawfully supercedes any other rule
– but no agreement on list of “use cogens”, or agreement on definitions

distinction between International Law and International legitimacy
– “be careful when using legitimate and legitimacy”
– legitimacy is what is considered “appropriate” or “reasonable” (like stealing food and water after a hurricane)
– this sounds like “cognition,” and law is “social cognition” — but then what is behavioralism?
– murky law as part of underdeveloped institution of weak systems?

Executive Agreements are treaties in the international sense, but not in the domestic sense

“Hard Law” and “Soft Law” can be thought of as fuzzy categories

similarly, in fuzy logic,

cold: [0 .. 60]
warm: [50 .. 100]

Open Questions

Law = Social Cognition = Moral Warfare ??
Pragmatism = Behavioralism = Physical Warfare ??
Legitimacy = Cognition = Mental Warfare ??

Implications for 3GW/4GW/5GW ?
Visualize as 3D box?

Self-Executing Treaties are automatically domestic law; not so with non-self-executing treaties

RUDs = reservations, understandings, and declarations
Missouri v Holland: treaties can trump states rights

Monisms v Dualisms: is international law the same as national law (America is dualistis, so not here)

“Stand-off Capacity” = counterveiling power (?)

International Court of Justice (ICJ)
– power is advisory (moral / social cognitive / internationally lawful)
– cases get to it when certain states request it, may be listed in a treaty
– of the UNSC5, only UK has given general compulsary declarative (GCD) power to ICJ – -meaning of the UNSC5, ICJ rulings are domestic law only in UK
– previously, had qualified GCD in USA, but lost after Nicaragua v. USA
– states can have foreign policies in areas that are not prempted by federal government

Filartiga (sp?) (1980) and Alien Tort Claims Act (1970)
– US upheld tort against Paraguay for torture of Paraguayan in Paraguay
– used customary international law
– “ended” or “ending” now?
– Carter admin encouraged the Court to rule as it did

International Politics 1

How is International Relations an American discipline?
– rational choice emphasis (‘rationalism”)
– calcuated cost/benefits (outcomes and ratios)
– also likely responses of others
– implies realism

instrumental science: suggests science is a tool to further human domination
critical theorists: Western social science extends that domination to other humans

(but not Eastern philosophy — tdaxp?)

(state premption, localization, lack of professionalism as roadbloacks to practical instrument social science
– compare to development of “useless” general aesthetics as developed field i n Europe)

Western/Newtonian/Cartestian/American/Anglo-Saxon worldview
– destruction, creationism, mechanics, individual
– blogospheric: tdaxp link?

Many prominent “American” IR Realists are European
– Hertz, Kissinger, Brezinski, Morganthau
– some non-realist ones two (Hoffman)

“The Great Debatein International Relations”
Idealists (emphasis on ability to reform humanity) v. Realists (emphasis on unchanging state of main)
(idealism as similar to dadaism?)
(idealism after WWI, realism before and after)
(realism as “default” position”)
(what about non-state realism?)

also: Science (focus on quantitative method) v. Tradition (focus on law and history)

Dependency Theory – from Latin America in the 1970s
– blunted by East Asian (ROK, ROC, SING, HK) growth

Ways / Causes of growth of IR
– Professionalization (verticalization)
– Interdisciplinary Borrowing (horizontalization)
(but isn’t verticalization a horizontalization an effect, not a cause?)
– Events (but what did similar events not inspire growth elsewhere)
– Demands (but why demands?)

Is social science more politics driven than hard sciences?
More “progress” in hard sciencess

First, the lyrics

This is how we multiply
Pity that it’s not my wife
The friction and skin
The trembling sigh
This is how bodies move
With everything we could lose
Pushing us deeper still
The sheets and the sweat
The seed and the spill
The bitter pill yet undiscovered

Gideon is in the drawer
Clothes scattered on the floor
She’s arching her back
She screams for more

Oh, my sweet rapture
I hear Jesus
Calling me home

Finally a chance to breathe
Reaching for the the fallen sheets
Collapsing in a glowing heap
We’ve gone too far
We’ve done too much
We have to quit it
Just one more kiss
Just one more touch
Please ten more minutes

This feels so good
Just barely moving
The tension building
Our bodies working
To reach the goal

Oh, my sweet rapture
I hear Jesus and the angels singing
Hallelujah
Calling me to enter the promised land

Then, an explanation

To me, “Rapture” has always been a stylish critique of Christianity. I don’t think it is too much to assume that all forms of Protestant Christianity contain the following element: Belief in Christ and Repentance of sin assure us of eternal life. As I see it, this element is all Bazan needs to express a powerful critique of Christianity that develops from frustrated Christians rather than non-believers.

The Scene: Dave is having great adulterous sex in a hotel room. Then, Hark! He hears the Angels Sing, and in the twinkling of an eye, Dave goes to heaven.

Beautiful contrast! As he is sinning, God saves him.

The critique, as I see it is this: The guarantee of eternal life frees the believer from any punishment for sin. This gives Christians the license to sin without fear of eternal consequence. The net result is that Christians who are trying to live moral lives become frustrated because they see other Christians who do whatever they please, and still experience the grace and forgiveness of Christ Jesus, which earns them eternal union with the Divine. The promise of eternal security steals motivation to do good. What’s the point of behaving when you can “feel so good” and still hear “Jesus and the angels singing Hallelujah?”

Bazan’s way of expressing the issue is so powerful because sex before or outside of marriage is so frequently and redundantly condemned by Christian culture. Taking the listener out of this context into eternal union with Holy God shocks the listener and reminds me that I too could be having sex and it wouldn’t threaten my eternal security. There is no sin too great for God to forgive us for it; naturally, God’s love is perfect, and God will still love me despite all my sins. The tension is also heightened by the fact that Dave realizes he is doing wrong, “gone too far… done too much” and then decides to keep going after his conviction. Which would, in many Christian’s eyes, make the sin worse since it might prove any repentance disingenuous.

Of course there is the alternative interpretation: The “rapture” is not literal, it is a metaphor for an orgasm (which clearly fits the context) and simultaneously serves as an illustration that union with God is the best thing a created being can ever experience. But in this case, there is no explanation why he describes it as an immoral deed, “not my wife” “gone too far, done too much” “we have to quit it.” Plus if the rapture, Jesus, and angels are metaphorical, then certainly the “Calling me to enter the promise land” refers to Dave being called by Jesus and the Angels to penetrate vaginas.

That’s certainly not my interpretation.

Last, a discussion thread