|
I promise this is a genuine, if probably theoretical question: what mechanism would the UN have to remove or counteract the Security Council veto? Either temporarily or permanently?
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 16:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 20:56 |
|
|
Kagrenak posted:An enforcement of the ICJ ruling would absolutely have to come from the security council. See article 94 of the UN charter: Exactly, it has to be enforced by the UNSC, and the member-states of the UNSC do not have the power to veto the enforcement of ICJ rulings. This is a legal limit of the veto power explicitly reserved for cases of genocide and crimes against humanity. It does not apply to the crime of aggression. Kagrenak posted:It is untrue that the US (or any of the other permanent members) cannot veto UNSC actions related to enforcing an ICJ ruling. They can and they have. This is for the crime of aggression which the veto power is not limited for. I was mistaken in the other post about the extent of the limit. WhiskeyWhiskers fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Jan 26, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 16:49
|
|
|
youcallthatatwist posted:I promise this is a genuine, if probably theoretical question: what mechanism would the UN have to remove or counteract the Security Council veto? Either temporarily or permanently? On normal resolutions? Nothing. By design any veto from the UNSC is absolute. The enforcement mechanism wouldn't be a resolution though, so theoretically the anti-genocide side of the world has a lot more leverage than usual. If I understand all this correctly, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 16:49
|
|
|
At the very least it should counter some of the excuses countries have been using to block BDS actions against Israel. Hopefully
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 16:50
|
|
|
It is untrue that the US (or any of the other permanent members) cannot veto UNSC actions related to enforcing an ICJ ruling. They can and they have. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States This was in response to a final judgement as well, not just a provisional ruling. quote:This is a legal limit of the veto power explicitly reserved for cases of genocide and crimes against humanity. It does not apply to the crime of aggression. Do you have a source for this actually being litigated? All I can find relating to this is discussion about something like that being adopted by some international law professors in the late 2010s. There doesn't seem to be any carve out in the charter. E: a draft non binding code of conduct was proposed in 2015 (A/70/621-S/2015/978) but never even adopted Neurolimal posted:On normal resolutions? Nothing. By design any veto from the UNSC is absolute. The enforcement mechanism wouldn't be a resolution though, so theoretically the anti-genocide side of the world has a lot more leverage than usual. Everything I can find, from the text of the charter and from the ICJ website as well as the Nicaragua case seems to indicate that the recourse to the UNSC comes in the form of a petition for a resolution. Kagrenak fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Jan 26, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 16:55
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:On normal resolutions? Nothing. By design any veto from the UNSC is absolute. The enforcement mechanism wouldn't be a resolution though, so theoretically the anti-genocide side of the world has a lot more leverage than usual. So there's no way to reform the system? Or for the parties opposing the US's judgements here, i.e. Literally Everyone, to overturn a blatantly undemocratic decision? Because that seems like a pretty foundational problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 17:04
|
|
|
Kagrenak posted:E: a draft non binding code of conduct was proposed in 2015 (A/70/621-S/2015/978) but never even adopted. My mistake then, sorry
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 17:13
|
|
|
Council of Europe signatories (so, most of Europe including the UK) have legal obligations not to sell arms to countries at risk of violating international law, and the highest possible authority has just said that Israel is sufficiently at risk to be tried for genocide. That makes the ECHR another non-UN vehicle of pressure against 'em. https://x.com/jon_trickett/status/1750865451041575421?s=46&t=ARI_L-v32Oind1-d9B3a3Q
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 17:17
|
|
|
youcallthatatwist posted:So there's no way to reform the system? Or for the parties opposing the US's judgements here, i.e. Literally Everyone, to overturn a blatantly undemocratic decision? Because that seems like a pretty foundational problem. This was very much intentional. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_members_of_the_United_Nations_Security_Council posted:The permanent members were all Allies in World War II (and the victors of that war), and are the five states with the first and most nuclear weapons They were making the new world order, and the most powerful allied countries in the world wanted to make sure it stayed that way. They wouldn't have signed on without their power being written in stone. Also, "we have nukes" is already a defacto veto for most issues.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 17:19
|
|
|
youcallthatatwist posted:So there's no way to reform the system? Or for the parties opposing the US's judgements here, i.e. Literally Everyone, to overturn a blatantly undemocratic decision? Because that seems like a pretty foundational problem. If you could get rid of the veto somehow the veto-holding powers would just withdraw from the UN. The veto exists as a recognition that those powers can't practically have such decisions imposed on them anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 17:40
|
|
|
I think it would also be important to consider what the override means, are you saying that the UN can force the US to donate troops and equipment to enforce its decisions (as far as I know the UN peace keeping force has no standing component) or are you saying that the other UN parties can intervene and the US will stand by and watch? I think if there's the appetite for direct intervention among the other major members (EU, China, Russia...) you would see rumblings already.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 17:44
|
|
|
The Atlantic re-upped this article right before the Court ruled the statements were incitement lol https://x.com/TheAtlantic/status/1750832228873990385?s=20
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 17:48
|
|
|
Whether or not the UN Security Council will enforce any conditions on Israel, the President of the United States, Joe Biden, is now actively providing military equipment to a state conducting a genocide, as recognized by the International Court of Justice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 18:19
|
|
|
National Parks posted:Whether or not the UN Security Council will enforce any conditions on Israel, the President of the United States, Joe Biden, is now actively providing military equipment to a state conducting a genocide, as recognized by the International Court of Justice. This isn't true. The ICJ hasn't determined that they are conducting genocide. That won't be determined for years, likely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 18:25
|
|
|
National Parks posted:Whether or not the UN Security Council will enforce any conditions on Israel, the President of the United States, Joe Biden, is now actively providing military equipment to a state conducting a genocide, as recognized by the International Court of Justice. Correction - a state that can plausibly be accused of conducting a genocide. This is important because even that low threshold is enough to make arms sales to Israel (and quite a few other forms of aid and support) illegal as poo poo for most signatories to international human rights laws. Genocide is a severe enough crime that even being reasonably suspected of it is supposed to close a bunch of doors.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 18:26
|
|
|
I know a lot of people were expecting the court to rule differently, but countries secretly love this poo poo even if/when they publicly oppose the court’s decision. It allows them to use the court as a scapegoat, and when said countries choose to comply with it they can just say it’s out of their hands, how can they ignore a court’s decision? Not saying the latter part will happen here too (especially re: the US), but it’s definitely something that is used to do something they secretly want to do but cannot really come out and say because of their voters or something. E.g., many European politicians were ‘happy’ when their country was convicted for failing to provide minimum standard living conditions and mental health access for mentally insane individuals who had committed serious crimes. That is not a strong campaign point to run on especially in times of inflation, but if a court forces them, that gives them a way out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 18:28
|
|
|
KillHour posted:This isn't true. The ICJ hasn't determined that they are conducting genocide. That won't be determined for years, likely. Oh my bad you're right let me amend my statement. Whether or not the UN Security Council will enforce any conditions on Israel, the President of the United States, Joe Biden, is now actively providing military equipment to a state ordered to refrain from acts under the Genocide convention, prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to genocide, as recognized by the International Court of Justice. A bit wordier but I want to do my part to stop misinformation. We will have to wait a few years until Israel has completed its genocide (personal opinion) before we can determine if the phrase "a state conducting a genocide, as recognized by the International Court of Justice." Is acurate or not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 18:45
|
|
|
Provisionally determined to be commiting genocide
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 18:55
|
|
|
https://x.com/AJEnglish/status/1750926578152788426?s=20 Wow, that's really alarming. I would be normally be skeptical since it's Israel making the claim, but considering that UNRWA already terminated the contracts, it seems like a very credible claim. Here's the full story with more information: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/26/unrwa-probes-employees-over-suspected-involvement-in-october-7-attacks E: I'm just talking about that first tweet. I'm not twitter-saavy enough to isolate it here without that second one... Kalit fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Jan 26, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 19:14
|
|
|
Kalit posted:https://x.com/AJEnglish/status/1750926578152788426?s=20 Given the timing of the accusation and the entity making the accusation, I’m gonna provisionally declare that the claim is hogwash even if the UN terminated their contracts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 19:23
|
|
|
Kalit posted:https://x.com/AJEnglish/status/1750926578152788426?s=20 It's actually pretty Interesting which tweet you chose to highlight out of the pair. National Parks fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Jan 26, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 19:24
|
|
|
National Parks posted:It's actually pretty Interesting which tweet you chose to highlight out of pair. I mean, I guess it's kind of weird that Mansour is implying that the ICJ did find Israel guilty of committing genocide when they explicitly didn't make a ruling on that aspect. Anyways, to give an answer to your....question? thought? insinuation? I honestly cannot tell, but I've made a few posts about the ICJ ruling in the Middle East Thread already, so I didn't feel like I needed to simply repeat my overall thoughts ITT.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 19:47
|
|
|
Kalit posted:https://x.com/AJEnglish/status/1750926578152788426?s=20 This was based on intelligence provided by Israel, so it’s pretty fair to say it’s bullshit, especially given the timing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 19:47
|
|
|
Kalit posted:I mean, I guess it's kind of weird that Mansour is implying that the ICJ did find Israel guilty of committing genocide when they explicitly didn't make a ruling on that aspect. Where do you get this from? The ICJ did order Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent acts of genocide. Considering this is against Gaza, that is historic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 19:51
|
|
|
Could the ICJ have done more? I have been confused as to the scope of their powers. The ICC does the actual trials, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 19:53
|
|
|
rkd_ posted:Where do you get this from? Assuming that verbiage in the tweet is correct, he specifically said that the ICJ ordered Israel to "stop" genocide, not "prevent" it. Maybe this is a bad assumption on my part, but I don't use the word "stop" for something that hasn't already started occurring.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 19:59
|
|
|
Kalit posted:I mean, I guess it's kind of weird that Mansour is implying that the ICJ did find Israel guilty of committing genocide when they explicitly didn't make a ruling on that aspect. Oh that's interesting too. Is your position is that people are misrepresenting the ICJ ruling and Israel is innocent till proven guilty, but youre also concerned UNRWA is guilty of supporting attacks on october 7th because they suspended some employees for investigation based on random allegations from Israel? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) National Parks fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Jan 26, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 20:01
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Assuming that verbiage in the tweet is correct, he specifically said that the ICJ ordered Israel to "stop" genocide, not "prevent" it. Maybe this is a bad assumption on my part, but I don't use the word "stop" for something that hasn't already started occurring. The court ruled provisionally that there is enough evidence to substantiate the claim that Israel's conduct has the appearance of genocide and that the case against them can proceed. Being told they have to take all measures to prevent their conduct from constituting genocide is being told to stop their actions that have given rise to this appearance. You pedantic boob.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 20:03
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Could the ICJ have done more? I have been confused as to the scope of their powers. The ICC does the actual trials, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 20:11
|
|
|
National Parks posted:Oh that's interesting too. Why are you being so weird? It feels like you're accusing me of being...something? But, TBH, I have no idea. Anyways, my post history is public, you can go through it and see that I've clearly stated that Israel is committing genocide a number of times. WhiskeyWhiskers posted:The court ruled provisionally that there is enough evidence to substantiate the claim that Israel's conduct has the appearance of genocide and that the case against them can proceed. Being told they have to take all measures to prevent their conduct from constituting genocide is being told to stop their actions that have given rise to this appearance. You pedantic boob. Pedantry is the bread and butter of D&D. It's why I post here. Kalit fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Jan 26, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 20:21
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Why are you being so weird? It feels like you're accusing me of being...something? But, TBH, I have no idea. All right I'll leave it there, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 20:25
|
|
|
not a value-add posted:What happens if Israel doesn’t comply with any of the measures? It seems like the genocidal rhetoric part of that will be another slam dunk case since Ben-Gvir immediately started posting childish and violent tweets after the news broke. I wanna ask a maybe-more-precise version of this: Can/will Israel's failure to comply with the measures be used as evidence that they are committing genocide? Particularly: Would failure to comply with the order constitute evidence for genocidal intent? I read the order and all of the "declarations" (the judge's comments) and my overall sense is that the judges seem at least somewhat skeptical that the statements presented by South Africa suffice to definitively prove genocidal intent on the part of the Israelis. None of the declarations seem to call into question the claim that Israeli acts, if motivated by genocidal intent, are acts of genocide. The obvious implication is that if intent cannot be established, even horrific war crimes cannot be officially classified as genocidal acts. It seems as though only an unambiguous official order laying out explicit plans for extermination of a people would satisfy all of the judges. Not every judge issued a comment or declaration, so it's hard to know how many of them have reservations there, but at any rate the composition of the court will change before this is over so there's no point in trying to guess the number of judges who are shaky on this. I'm asking because it seems like Israel's most promising line of defense is: "Yes we did all these war crimes (which you ICJ judges don't have jurisdiction over) but social media posts and interviews are not sufficient to establish genocidal intent and we're going to give you a very selective list of official documents where we order our soldiers to bring love and peace to Palestine." I'm no expert in international law, but it seems as though that defense might actually work. I don't think the ICJ has any power to compel parties to hand over evidence, and they have no way to verify that evidence handed over is complete. It seems unlikely that Israel would ever turn over internal documents that do demonstrate genocidal intent (even though they certainly exist). Just to be clear, I'm as convinced as most everyone else here that Israel is doing a genocide, but the way they interpret the relevant treaties seems to indicate that the criteria for genocidal intent are extremely strict.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 22:17
|
|
|
Palestinians will always win this conflict because they are willing to return, civilians are immediately willing to return to devastated parts of North Gaza to rebuild, in places that will probably get carpet bombed again in the next few weeks, whereas settler Israelis are afraid to return to lightly damaged areas where they might at some point be under attacked by bottle rockets. Pissant settler scum. Cowardly whiny Karens who thrive by reporting those who support resistance to colonialism to their employers/governments. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 22:22
|
|
|
https://x.com/AkbarSAhmed/status/1750994264937652469?s=20 Yes, yes, the US will just veto it, but hopefully dragging them in public to stand alone on the world stage defending Israel will burn through their public goodwill even faster.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 23:23
|
|
|
bleak lol that the US's response to Israel being officially put on trial for genocide is to defund refugee services in Palestine: https://x.com/robbiegramer/status/1750895411563213272?s=46&t=ARI_L-v32Oind1-d9B3a3Q
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 23:31
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:bleak lol that the US's response to Israel being officially put on trial for genocide is to defund refugee services in Palestine: This is like when you forget your wife’s birthday until you’re driving home after work and desperately praying that some takeout from Culver’s can be seen as a romantic meal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 23:49
|
|
|
Pookah posted:Palestinians will always win this conflict because they are willing to return, civilians are immediately willing to return to devastated parts of North Gaza to rebuild, in places that will probably get carpet bombed again in the next few weeks, whereas settler Israelis are afraid to return to lightly damaged areas where they might at some point be under attacked by bottle rockets. Said by a person who has never been under rocket fire, I'm sure. Not comparing the plight of people who live near Gaza to those who live inside it, since it is obviously incomparable. But being under rocket threat and around the memory of a massacre in your town is not something anyone can or should shrug off. Gazans have no choice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 23:57
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:bleak lol that the US's response to Israel being officially put on trial for genocide is to defund refugee services in Palestine: The “intelligence” this decision was based on was provided to the United States by Israel after they “interrogated captured militants”, so take that as you will.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 00:32
|
|
|
Even if true, 12 out of 30,000 employees is absolutely insignificant.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 00:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 20:56 |
|
|
ummel posted:Even if true, 12 out of 30,000 employees is absolutely insignificant. Yeah it's a very long road to hoe to get from 0.04% of the organization being involved to the organization being institutionally complicit or captured. Any excuse though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2024 01:08
|
|
