The part and the all: the Amazon is related to what? For Brazil and the United States, the "part"; for France, the "All". The issue is here

 III. FIRST SERIES OF QUESTIONS: IF IT IS NOT ONLY ONE ISSUE FOR ONE STATE, IS IT FOR WHOM?

If we admit the change of system, the first series of questions that opens is to know who has the Amazon for case to resolve if it is not that of Brazil alone? If one breaks down this question, it leads to designate the one that one could call the one who is "able juridically to worry about it", and therefore to decide something about it. For example, who can give money? The other States, and only them? (A). If one finds those who are legally able to act, is the action only about giving money? (A)

A. Who can give money? Only other legal subjects of Public International Law?

Leonardo DiCaprio felt it was his concern, since he said he was giving money, so presuming someone was going to receive it. Then, he "allied" with Will Smith to sell shoes for the benefit of the forest. Legally, they have moreover and more precisely facilitated the sale of these by the notoriety of their names, the profit of the sale going to the benefit of the Amazon. Will Smith said he was "concerned" with the Amazon and eager to save it. They assume that the money they bring or have brought will find a donee. In law, this is not obvious.

This is no doubt why the President of Brazil reminded that for a donation to be made, it is necessary not only a donor but a donee, because a donation is not a unilateral act, but a contract. To the extent that the forests does not have legal personality, nor do they have as a consequence the capacity to receive money, it is the Brazilian State to receive this gift, acceptance that the Brazilian head of state refused to formulate..

In the theory of the "right of interference", because it is the expression of a "duty for others"!footnote-1658, duty of which it is not necessary for a State to be the holder. Therefore, not only a celebrity but also a wealthy person, an anonymous, a collective, an association ; we remember that Médecins sans Frontières, is a private entity precisely "without borders"), had acted on the basis of this right.

So there is no legal or national structure? (in this case, Brazilian), nor international? (which, the UN?), to validate a kind of receivability of donations.

B. Can one just give money to the Amazon?

Demonstrations of protest, which are other sort of legal act, have been organized.

To say that one does not agree against the behavior (inertia is an action) of a government, even if one is a national of another country, is an action.

Events of this kind have multiplied, often driven by a local initiatives but with a pretension and a global effect. This is the case with "strikes for the climate", for example from 20 to 27 September 2019. This is described by some as a "global climate strike", even though it is actually made up of local events, but it is its global "pretention"!footnote-1662 which justifies this metonymy, that is to say, to take the "Part" (the goal: the global goal of theses local events) for the "All" (thus qualifying the whole of the strike as "global". The notion of a "climate strike" is new and spectacular, and it is legally very strange since it is classically necessary to be "inside" to strike, whereas here people are outside Brazil and act. This phenomenon, which refers to the legal conception since we move from the protest march to the legal concept of "strike", but a kind of "strike for the outside", a "strike for others"!footnote-1661 shows that legal borders explode because physical boundaries have come back, because globalization is dead!footnote-1663.

But can we go further, without the Brazilian Government now being able to say anything?

For example by bringing water, equipment? bringing people, experienced or not, controlled or not? at their entrance and during their presence or not?

IV. SECOND SERIES OF QUESTIONS: AFTER THE "AMAZON CASE", WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA FOR SEIZING OTHER CASES FOR WHICH "ALL" MUST PREVAIL ON "PART"?

If one admits the change of system, the second series of questions that opens depends again on the strength of the analogies. In the same way that we could move from one State to another, can we move from one case to another, because dramas like the current fire are meant to offer our eyes terrified and sorry (A). Because we can't be satisfied to go from drama to drama, from case to case, except to abandon the Law to the sole emotion, we must find general and abstract criteria to leave the "Part to go the "All", to detect in this case what justifies in the particular case of this forest its attachment to Globality: the fact that it is a systemic object (B). The Amazon, "global forest", then shows through its only example what should be released as an abstract criterion of an attachment to the All: a systemic nature. This justifies not only that this systemic concern is borne by another State, but even more importantly, that it be internalized by companies in a position to provide solutions, by the technique of Compliance Law (C).

A. The drama of the Amazon is not a unique drama: so many other "fires" ...

Social networks have been invaded by images of gigantic forest fires taking place in countries on the African continent.

The underlying discourse is twofold: 

First, it is to ask that the world windfall also falls on these countries, presented as being in distress as the Amazon (what we do not know, especially because of the photos-montages to about the Amazon).

Then, it is a question of showing that if we do this for the Amazon, by removing from the Brazilian government its power to exclude, a power to which we often associate sovereigntyfootnote-1674, then we must also do it for a series of other countries, ravaged by ecological dramas. If we do not want to take charge of "all the misery of the world, but take our part" as Michel Rocard said because we don't claim to be the Masters of the World, then what to do since identical dramas take place elsewhere and above all will take place in the future ?

Will it then be necessary to take the place of the governments, to contradict them, to thwart them, without making war on them? While, case by case, we will go from identical cases (forests burning) to similar cases (rivers overflowing, children diying).

why not? 

The difficulty is then conceptual and methodical: because the fire isn't the sole drama of Humanity.

B. The drama of the Amazon is not a unique drama: so many other dramas of Humanity and the need to specify the abstract criteria in which the necessary external intervention is also possible

The fire is terrible. Massive death of animals. Loss of the river of the sky. Sustainable ecological imbalance.

But what about the drought, which causes deaths and migrations in situ, which in turn causes deaths and imbalances in other States?

And what about massive and contagious diseases, at a time when old diseases eradicated reappear? Diseases that by nature are spreading.

Certainly for the moment the Public International Law has worked, because the government of the particular country concerned by the particular tragedy has accepted the aid offered by the other countries in bilateral or multilateral organizations. Except that the country concerned is in a situation of war, like Syria, but that configuration is also foreseen by Public International Law.

For the moment, countries which are not at war and which participate, according to the rule of law, in the international order continue to accept the aid mechanisms. The profit they have allows to keep the postulates of this Law. The degradation of Public International Law could lead to the fear of a retraction of certain States, preferring their isolation to their interest and the interest of their population, in a misunderstanding of what sovereignty is. We are not there yet. 

But analogies leading to the departure from public international law, as we propose to do for the Amazon, can be constructed for example about the sale of human beings, against which, despite the existence of some treaties, Public International Law is weak.

Exceeding Public International Law for anything else could then be done, either to have less than it (action of illiberal political systems), or to have more than it (action of llegal systems concerned with Humanity, whose first example comes to be given about the Amazon).

The second perspective is daring, but is not it induced by the first, catastrophic?

The question is then to know for how many situations no longer identical but for which the analogy is easy to establish, the same reasoning can be constructed: the territory in question is only a part of All that is the Globe and Humanity.

Thus, from case to case, the exceptional reasoning "part / All", which reverses the bases of Public International Law may become the principle.

It is therefore necessary to define the abstract conditions in which it can enter into force.

An Indian chief from the Amazon, Chief Roani insisted on September 2, 2019 on the fact that it was necessary to "do something" not only independently of the Brazilian political power but also "against" this one because the Amazonian forest is  a "critical issue".

This ties in with the scientists' claims about the "cruciality" of this particular object that is the Amazon.

However, the notion of cruciality is a legal concept known and controlled in Regulatory Law and Compliance Law, key concept that should be repeated and developed.

C. Abstract Criteria for organizing the prevalence of the All on the Part

The abstract criteria for making the All prevail on the Part implies that the envisaged situation is thought in systemic terms (1). This leads to superimposing on Public International Law the Compliance Law whose purpose is the concern for Humanity, which should also be developed (2).

1. Thinking en systemic terms

When we take up the Law of Regulation in its report not to the principle of Competition but  in its relation to the systemic risk!footnote-1650, we observe that operators (like "systemic banks" or "crucial operators") are are bound by rules that go beyond the borders because negative events what can happen to them would crumble the systems if the negative event considered happened.

As such, the bankruptcy of a systemic bank and the incident that makes a forest disappear on the balance of which the climate and the rain rest are of the same nature. Both are future events constituting excluded future disasters, for which comprehensive risk prevention must be established. If they happen, because supervision has failed, the management of the crisis does not only concern the country in which the systemic object is placed.

The Amazon rainforest is systemic.

As is happening in the digital world!footnote-1651, as has long been the case in banking, it is necessary to establish supranational lists of systemic and supersystemic objects. With, as in banking, objects targeted by the States in whose territory they are situated and a general substantial criterion determining the objects which the world can not do without, except to accept a global catastrophe (which is the general definition of "negative goal" of the systemic perspective!footnote-1651).

These mechanisms work well in the banking, financial and audiovisual sectors, only because there are supervisory authorities. This allows to organize the Ex Ante, which avoids the disaster, which distinguishes the Supervision Law of the Regulation Law and even more of the Competition Law!footnote-1653.

However, for the moment, such Supervisory Authorities do not exist.

But as finance grows greener and greener, the Compliance Law itself takes care of the environmental concern and introduces it into the "crucial global banking and financial operators", which is controlled by the supervisors of these Companies in their Ex Ante structures, it is possible that by the Law of Supervision and Banking and Financial Compliance Law, then of Compliance in International Trade Law, we obtain a result in Ex Ante efficiency. Since it is a question of preventing and not a question of sanctioning. Without the need to build a specific supranational authority. Not that we can not dream about a such institution, but we will say that the political circumstances are not actually very conducive.

2. Superimposing on Public International Law a Compliance Law aimed at the concern for Humanity

If Public International Law and multilateralism are still important (agreements between the Sovereign Parties that are the States in the international order), especially diplomacy (continuous relations between these Sovereign Parties, superimposed on the relations with the ordinary entities), this approach, based on Regulation, Supervision and Compliance, must be added to the States and their multilateral relations.

Moreover, jurisdictions must give full effect to the will of States, articulating these actions of private operators with long-term political actions.

In the same way that Compliance Law allows the States to internalize their "monumental goals" in the crucial enterprises "!footnote-1654 (for example saving the planet, by making it possible through the concretization of the concern of the Amazon corresponds to this case of figure), international courts must be able to intervene.

Because there are no effective and legitimate legal systems without a judge. In his absence, the doctrine concludes that there is still no "world legal order".

Many States welcome this when it allows them to effectively escape their international obligations, the WTO having found an effective way only by setting up a regressive and archaic system of relaliation, private justice for the benefit of the State whose the claim is recognized as legitimate by the panel of the Dispute Settlement Body of this international organization.

But in the cases that concern us, it's not about Ex Post sanctions, taking many years. What would be required would be not only the decisions implemented by the State concerned but also jurisdictional decisions adopted quickly, by a mechanism similar to that of the interim measures, according to a strict criterion of urgency, the obviousness and the irrefutable perspective of imminent harm.

This World judge does not exist.

So it is towards an internationalization in the "crucial enterprises" by "Law of the Compliance" whose concern for Humanity!footnote-1655 which animates some States, that it is necessary to go, effective legal method , superimposed on a legitimate Public International Law in which must continue to believe. This is the meaning of Emmanuel Macron's intervention at the UN General Assembly on September 24, 2019.

Indeed, Compliance Law is a substantially new Law and not just a methodology, even less a mechanical process!footnote-1666. It is substantially new because it has for "monumental goal"!footnote-1667 Humanity, which is a legal "invention"!footnote-1668, and the "Person", which is also a "legal invention"!footnote-1668.

After the Second World War, the appalling disaster led to the conclusion that the time for truly inventions, that is conceptual inventions was closed!footnote-1664. As there is a dimension in the invention of concepts including legal ones!footnote-1669, Art and Law expressing by the creation the resistance to the events!footnote-1670, one could take note of the disappearance of these acts of creation!footnote-1672, this is to say of resistance. But now that the time of calamities plunges us back into disarray!footnote-1671, the moment of conceptual inventions comes from necessity. Compliance Law, in that it is substantially humanistic!footnote-1673, fixing as "monumental goal" the concretization of the protection of the All, of Humanity and of the Person, is emerging.

Build it.

___________