A direct translation from Latin of mutatis mutandis would read, 'with those things having been changed which need to be changed'. More colloquially, it can be interpreted as 'the necessary changes having been made,' where "the necessary changes" are usually implied by a prior statement assumed to be understood by the reader. It carries the connotation that the reader should pay attention to the corresponding differences between the current statement and a previous one, although they are analogous. This term is used frequently in economics and in law, to parameterize a statement with a new term, or note the application of an implied, mutually understood set of changes. The phrase is also used in the study of counter-factuals, wherein the requisite change in the factual basis of the past is made and the resulting causalities are followed.
Addendum: Oct. 14, 2007. How and why do I know this? Or care to know? Well, grasshopper, as we learn in international law, this is a legal reasoning that would allow for a treaty to be broken. Though, to be realistic, breaking "international law" (geneva accords, multilateral treaties, etc) requires no "legal rational." A country does what it wills and and obeys the treaties it subscribes to only if they are in the best interest of the country. Usually they are because the consequences of breaking international law spread beyond just the immediate consequences, (notably, they destroy the integrity of your word).
As British Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston (whom i mistakenly have referred to as Pemberton, for some reason) effectively said, England "has no permanent friends; she has only permanent interests."
No comments:
Post a Comment