While Madame Bastien was talking, David glanced hastily at the fragmentary writings that his hostess had just given him. The fossilized remains of a dinosaur could be described as fragmentary if they exist in many different parts and perhaps some of the parts are missing. The more literal meanings of fragmentary and fragmented are similar, but fragmented is perhaps more likely to be used to describe things that have broken from something else, such as in a fragmented part of a broken bone or the fragmented pieces of a broken vase. Fragmentary, on the other hand, is more likely to be applied to the thing that was once whole, as opposed to parts of it, as in fragmentary remains. Nevertheless, words are sometimes used overlappingly, fragmental being used as a less common synonym for fragmentary and fragmented as a less common synonym for fragmented. A number of principles or formulas used in treaty provisions and judicial decisions to coordinate various (sub)orders or legal regimes can be summarized under the heading “constitutional tolerance”. 78 These formulas were originally developed by courts (European and national) and academics dealing with the multitude of legal systems (national and supranational or regional) in Europe. The word fragment is also used to refer to a part or part of something that is incomplete or isolated from the whole, such as a fragment of a film or piece of music. Sometimes fragmentary is used to describe things as disjointed, separate, or incomplete. This meaning of the word is most often used to describe intangible or abstract things, as in fragmentary evidence or a fragmentary proposition. Finally, I would like to say that fragmentation is about unity, harmony, cohesion, order and, consequently, the quality of international law as a truly normative order. Concerns about this have been vilified as a “postmodern fear”43 in a world that has lost stable values.
But isn`t it legitimate to fear that international law “is no longer a singular undertaking? but only an empty rhetorical device that vaguely describes the scope of the various discourses in question”?44 Without a cement that holds together the “special regimes” and the “institutional components”, writes Georges Abi-Saab, “the special regime becomes a legal order in itself – a kind of legal Frankenstein” that “no longer shares the same basis of legitimacy and the same formal norms of relevance”. 45 The debate on fragmentation is therefore ultimately based on concerns about a loss of legitimacy of international law, which would ultimately threaten the very existence of that law. Staudinger uses these objects to play with words, reflect on the role of the artist, and write a fragmentary autobiography. Yes, she remembered now, even if it still looked like a dream – a fragmentary and foggy dream. In the context of the change of the episteme, which lies in the change of terminology, and just as important, is the defense of a pluralism of values. The awareness of a strong diversity of values among the various international institutions initially raised concerns about the legitimacy of the international legal order as a whole, after the belief in the sovereignty of States as a necessary and sufficient fundamental principle of international law was lost. The debate on fragmentation arose from this concern about legitimacy deficits arising from internal contradictions and conflicting norms, and the procedures and coordination instruments being developed also respond, at least implicitly, to this concern. The principles of reconciliation applicable at all levels ease tensions and frictions. Thus, the principle of sustainable development aims to reconcile friction between international development law and international environmental law.95 Where the conflicting legal concepts of sovereignty/non-interference on the one hand and human rights/human security on the other are synthesized in the non-binding concept of responsibility to protect (R2P). However, the application of these principles of conciliation alone cannot resolve any concrete normative conflict, but only prevent the total concealment of one of the regimes or principles in question. A related phenomenon arises from the recognition that international human rights are relevant to virtually all subjects and subfields of international law. This awareness continues to motivate both formal revisions of specific standards to take into account human rights concerns and new interpretations.96 This integration of human rights also has a basic effect.97 With regard to the use of human rights as an instrument of integration, Dirk Pulkowski has the idea of using a small number of fundamental concepts of international law (such as “sovereignty”).
the “right to human rights” or specific provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) or Charter of the United Nations98) as “constitutive rules” that create the possibility of meaningful legal discourse. These will lead to “communicative compatibility” rather than legal unity.99 In the past, new species were often reported based on certain teeth or other fragmentary evidence, says John Hawks, an anthropologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who was not involved in the new research. Francis Watson argued that all the fragmentary sentences preserved on the papyrus are also found in the Gospel of Thomas. “The oral histories, testimonies and memoirs presented here, while offering a subjective and fragmentary narrative, acquire political significance because they place the experiences of young people in the broader context of the history and memory of the Nazi occupation.” t.co/pRym0fTNJe On a more abstract level, what is happening here and what should be welcomed and promoted is the internalization of an outside perspective. Gunther Teubner notes that the differentiation and autonomy of “systems” (which seem to include the various international treaty regimes) have led to a “networked architecture” of transnational regimes. The important analytical and normative point now is that “each regime must combine two contradictory requirements”: all regimes formulate their own vision of a global public interest (from their own perspective), while all regimes “simultaneously consider the whole by transcending their individual perspective.” “Each regime must create global transnational public order from its own perspective”, a “common horizon of meaning” must be constructed, a “counterfactual hypothesis of a common normative core”. 142 I took calls in the field, with piecemeal updates. Often, paleontologists tasked with reconstructing the fragmentary remains of these animals have been guided in their efforts to draw analogies to more familiar objects and circumstances. The St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868 prohibited the use of bullets that explode on impact with the human body, and this was the basis of the legal notion of “unnecessary injury or suffering.” 1 In the 1890s, there was growing concern about the effects of other spheres, including the British dumdum spheres, on humans. This concern has sparked debate about the effectiveness of bullets or their braking power, and the harm civilized nations should inflict on their enemies.2–5 Accordingly, in the 1899 Hague Declaration, the Parties agreed to “refrain from using bullets that expand or flatten easily in the human body. like spheres with a hard shell that is not completely covered with the core or pierced with incisions.
(Such balls now have various names such as expansion, softpoint, and hunting; it is best to collectively call them half-coat spheres.) Since then, all military bullets have been covered with an all-metal jacket, an example of successful international legislation. Offill`s characteristic fragmentary style pulls into Weather, creating a novel less driven by plot and more by mood and atmosphere. The author`s statistical claims were based on wild extrapolations from fragmentary and unreliable sources. The most discussed “procedure” or means of promoting the integration of different regimes is judicial dialogue. This is inherently informal, but could be encouraged and facilitated through institutional formats. Judicial dialogue essentially means that courts respect each other`s case law and cross-citations. These references and the parallel use of “general” international law that surrounds it have the effect of harmonizing and/or orienting the various treaties towards respect for common principles. Thus, the principle of national treatment exists in both WTO and investment law, and cross-quotations have the effect of consolidating its meaning in terms of common content. Overall, such an “interjudicial dialogue. has the potential to preserve the unity of the international legal system in the face of fragmentation.” 135 This integration effect also appears to work when courts do not necessarily cite each other for communication (“dialogue”), but for completely different reasons (e.g.
acceptance by colleagues in the judiciary), and even if the quotations are, as is often the case, selective.136 The Lotus and the Tempest turns out to be a great haunted melodrama with elements of the camp, delivered in fragmentary reverie. What is needed now is a continuous improvement in the coordination strategies of the different areas of law and legal levels, a refinement of conflict prevention techniques and sophisticated mechanisms to resolve the inevitable in the absence of a clear normative hierarchy. In addition, relevant actors must be prepared to “justify interpretations of relevant regional, global or national law in general and not narrow-minded concepts”192 and to internalize external perspectives.