A fundamental change of circumstances

Article 62 of the 1960 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties says that if states undergo a fundamental change in circumstances with regards to a treaty obligation upheld by that state, the state can "get out" of their treaty obligation even though one of the peremptory norms of international law is that treaties should be upheld. A fundamental change in circumstances has to be a pretty big deal for it to count in international law. For example, a classic case where a state tried and failed to use the fundamental change of circumstances excuse was when state A had an obligation to construct a dam with state B on the border of their two countries. After over a decade of construction (and the breakup of the Soviet Union), it was looking like state A wasn't going to get such a good deal out of the treaty. In attempting to withdraw, they argued there had been a number of fundamental changes of circumstances that had occurred since the treaty was signed, among them the newly discovered negative environmental impact of the dam in addition to the other massive unforeseen economic problems they had to deal with because of their transition from a socialist economy to a capitalist economy. The International Court of Justice, deciding the case, rule that the economic fallout from the breakup of one of the two super powers of the second half of the 20th century did not constitute a fundamental change in circumstances, and neither did the possible environmental damage the dam could cause. For a fundamental change of circumstances to occur negating the treaty, they reasoned, something really drastic would have to occur-- like the drying up of the whole freaking river.

I tend to be a lot like the justices on the International Court of Justice when it comes to looking at fundamental changes of circumstances. Often times, when it would be easier, or more convenient, to simply say "life's changed, let's move on", I have a tendency to stick around a lot more often than most other people I've spoken with would. Lately (especially lately) I've been prone to more self reflection on why this is. I've rehashed the possibilities with the majority of you that know about and can check this space on a regular basis at some point or another, but regardless of any deeper psychological reasoning behind it, I still find myself believing some greater good will come out of the situation, that giving up would be the "easy way out". At times I wonder if this is a profound way of looking at the world, or if I'm just profoundly stupid. Since my life's motto is, essentially "things fall apart", one would wonder why, when things do start falling apart, I feel as though I have a moral obligation to rush in and start trying to hold things up regardless of the apparent pointlessness of doing so. If a child touches a hot stove and is burned, does any sane child try to keep touching the hot stove to make it cool down? Is that really any different from what I sometimes do?

While this post is somewhat related to recent events, focusing on one solitary problem inevitably begins to sound whiny. A recent book review, on Slate.com of a book called "Don't Cry", said that the author, whose name I unfortunately have forgotten, essentially wrote a book portraying all human tragedy as equal. We don't think in those terms-- to us, a woman losing her new born baby is a lot more tragic than somebody missing somebody else after a one-night stand-- but the author wrote a series of very short stories, one right after another, describing varieties of human suffering. One scene shows a wife in an abusive relationship, another a lonely traveler in an airport, and another a man consumed by his work. All, the author seems to say, are equal; one can't categorize human tragedy. The title of the book, "Don't Cry", is actually ironic in that the entire point of the book is that it's okay to cry no matter how minor or trivial one's situation may seem to the rest of society, it's personal, real, and hurts to the person experiencing it. The book reviewer points out that the possible implications of people in real life treating human suffering as equal would be enormous, that we'd essentially never stop crying.

As I've grown older, I've held on to the somewhat romantic notion that despite anything, things can and will work out if we just try hard enough. However, the repeated instances of things not working out, or at least not being nearly as simple as I believe they should be, have begun to make me question this notion. Am I just a kid putting my hand on the stove over and over? Does growing up mean you become more callous to the suffering around you, that you learn to suck it up and move on and screw over everybody else because they're just out to screw you? Or does growing up mean realizing, truly, that it's no sign of health to be well acclimated to a fatally sick world, that when things are uncomfortable, awkward, stressful, painful, it's okay to give yourself a while to not just "get over it"? Does the former allow you to live your life with less pain? Does the latter mean you get to keep a hold of something something actually resembling life as it should be? Is there a right answer? Should my views change?

As I grow up, and keep experiencing all of the drama that's associated with life with fewer and fewer filters, I really don't know if I'm progressing, regressing, or actually experiencing something close to a real fundamental change in circumstances.