But I could not think of what.

archive message credit

In N. I lost
what had been dear to me.
I searched high and low
wondering where I'd left it
and gave up hope of finding it
and the fear of never finding it again.
I puzzled with downcast eyes,
forgot which way I had come
and then the smell of wood and tar, the color
of ashes,
and I forgot a year and a day,
sat on a bench in the park
for as long as I could remember,
could no longer find time,
no longer knew who I was, that man
sitting there so thoughtfully
as if he were thinking of something dear to him.

-Toon Tellegen, "I" from In N.





First it starts with the eyes to spare the man from witnessing his own vanishing. He would not believe it if he saw it. Then the hearing goes. This ensures that he does not hear his own groans, the complaint of the loved one telling him he’s left his foot by the door. Then the memory recedes. The man cannot remember his foot or ever having a foot. The man does not remember seeing it attached, despite the failure of his vision. The man cannot recall hearing the floorboards creak beneath his weight. This makes the man sad, though he can’t remember the cause of his sorrow. And so it goes… and so it goes.

-Oliver de la Paz, "How Domingo Disappears"





"to go without
comes naturally to me now, it costs me
almost nothing anymore.
I have let them go for so long,
and so profoundly,
that if you asked me about it I couldn't say
exactly what they were
and if I really wanted them. Their place
inside my head is empty.
Even the sense of missing them
has left no trace."

-Umberto Flori, from "Face"

(thanks to



1 note

“The Vienna Convention’s articles on treaty interpretation were adopted by unanimous vote and largely reflect preexisting customary international law. Nonetheless, there was extensive discussion at the drafting conference both on the formation of Article 31 and 32 and whether to include them at all. The principal issue to be resolved was whether and to what extent the intentions of the parties and the object and purpose of an agreement should supplement consideration of the text of the treaty in the process of interpretation. The final commentary to Articles 31 and 32 notes:

(2) Jurists also differ to some extent in their basic approach to the interpretation of treaties according to the relative weight which they give to:

     (a) The text of the treaty as the authentic expression of the intentions of the parties;
     (b) The intentions of the parties as a subjective element distinct from the text; and
     (c) The declared or apparent objects and purposes of the treaty.

Some place the main emphasis on the intentions of the parties and in consequence admit a liberal recourse to the travaux preparatoires [the preparatory work of the treaty] and to other evidence of the intention of the contracting States as means of interpretation. Some give weight to the object and purpose of the treaty and are in consequence more ready, especially in the case of general multilateral treaties, to admit teleological interpretations of the text which go beyond, or even diverge from, the original intentions of the parties as expressed in the text. The majority, however, emphasizes the primacy of the text as the basis for the interpretation of a treaty, while at the same time giving a certain place to extrinsic evidence of the intentions of the parties and to the object and purposes of the treaty as means of interpretation.”

    — Aspen Publishers’ Internal Law: Norms, Actors, Processes 3rd Ed.



(This is the sort of thing I now, as per class, spend most of my time reading and is why I haven’t posted all that much lately, aside from reblogs. I think it’s fascinating but I feel like it would be unappreciated generally, so I’m refraining. My apologies for the lack of posts, though.)

February 20th
  1. hypocrite-lecteur posted this