200 words response to this post
This last week's reading from our book solidified a concept that I was entertaining since Week 1; much of International Law is established through the development of norms despite what the words on paper say. It is obviously important for laws to be made and treaties to be signed, as well as advocates to further their unique interests or morals, but at the end of the day, the same words can be interpreted in different ways or altogether ignored by any parties involved. I find this both terribly annoying and also convenient, as I mentioned in the beginning of this class. One particular point that keeps coming to mind is the devolution of state sovereignty and the increasing pressure for humanitarian intervention, or the guise of such intervention (Silverburg 2011, 567). Perhaps we are seeing the pullback from sovereign erosion with the rise of nationalist movements throughout so many Western countries. With this in mind, do you think that the twenty-first century era of core rights may come to an abrupt end into some new era that feels more contemporary in nature (Silverburg 2011, 568-571)?