Elerond

Isn't SA effectivelly a Russian ally against USA in world politics these days?

If any NATO member sends their troops to Ukraine outside of NATO mission, then those troops aren't protected by NATO's articles. Same way as their troops in Middle east or Africa etc. aren't protected by NATO's articles. But I am not sure I there is actually any country that actually wants send their troops outside of some grandstanding speeches. Sending old armament from their end of life storages was already difficult political process to do

Security council's resolutions are legally binding (although UN charter does not mention term resolution, but uses terms decision and recommendation) and all UN members are agreed to enforce them, when they joined to UN. But without that legal enforcement which all the UN members have agreed on, those resolutions are just same as presidential statements that just decelerated wishes of majority of security council. But when two permanent members of security council say that resolution is non-binding, then the legal binding of the resolution is on thin ice and they will most likely veto its enforcement in UN. ICJ decision are enforced by Security council, but any of the five permanent members have right to veto any effort of enforcement. With Security Council's resolutions security council should have already decided way to enforce the resolution or otherwise security council needs to come up with another resolution where they agree with how they will enforce the previous resolution and then any of the five permanent members can veto any effort of enforcement.

It is like the summaries of the resolution from news (as UN has not released official version of the resolution yet) says "the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages". For which Hamas said that resolution will allow them to start again negotiations of releasing the hostages. When both sides of the conflict, see that resolution does not have any other effect than how it impacts their political grandstanding in international setting and resolution does not have any consequences for either side or for members of security council, if 'demands' of the resolution aren't met, then resolution becomes non-bidding as it is just set of wishes on paper. There just is not political will in UN or anywhere to make those resolution to be actually binding and every one knows it, which is why UN security council and other institutions have lost all the political power to resolve conflicts that they may have had in past.

Russia has made quite lot extremist groups angry in Syria, Afghanistan and West Africa and as in past two years Russia has focused its intelligence to sabotage Ukraine and hunt domestic dissidents, those extremist groups may have had opportunity infiltrate in Russia and plan terrorist strikes. Considering that Russia has not been very selective when they have hired mercenaries to fight in Ukraine, so those extremist groups could have even got paid by Russia to sent their people there.

Both US and UK claim that wording of the resolution is non-binding, meaning that they will not do anything to enforce it. And they most likely will not will let anyone else either to enforce it. Also resolution does not seem to have any effect on Israel's willingness to continue their rampage, so impact of the resolution will most likely to be next to nothing.

Considering that Hamas stopped elections in Gaza after their win and last Palestinian presidential election was in 2005, Israel can say they vote for it and Israel is only democracy in the middle east, although as Israel's current leadership is killing democratic institutions in Israel can we anymore call Israel democracy.

https://apnews.com/article/alabama-supreme-court-from-embryos-161390f0758b04a7638e2ddea20df7ca Does that mean that if you get children using IVF and then latter get divorce you need to pay child support for all the embryos in IVF clinic's freezer for forever?

I am pretty sure that audience that he targeted with his answers is not Western audience, for him it was just bonus if Carlson's interview causes divergences among westerners. But he is interested increase support in east and south

Funding of peacekeeper is not voluntary, as every Member State is legally obligated to pay their respective share towards peacekeeping. Unlike with UN refugee organosations where funding is voluntary and is mostly done by USA.

UNCCT works as well as all of the UN's institutions This is quite similar scandal as 2005 expose about UN peacekeepers, which revealed that they had been raping, sexually abusing women and children and forcing them to prostitution for their own profit for years. Result of that scandal was no one was punished and now about two decades later peacekeepers still do same. https://press.un.org/en/2006/sc8649.doc.htm https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/un-suspends-some-peacekeepers-congo-denounces-sexual-abuse-2023-10-12/

Those tribunal were temporal courts, which were created to handle one specific case, founded by countries that decided to intervene, they approved by UN, giving UN credit for establishing them is bit much in my opinion. They didn't have clear membership, clear structure of rules who can be bring up issues to the tribunal, which issues the tribunal will look and what is the international legal status of their rulings. And their existence tells how well ICJ works against genocide cases as those tribunals were established instead of taking the case in ICJ.

They are one case tribunals, which aren counted as official courts and their structure and rules don't fill requirements for international institution.

Heh, like that somehow has prevented them doing it in past

Statues of ICJ are same that it predecessor PCIJ, it name just changed when League of Nations was replaced with UN. Name change didn't make it any better in making itself look like that is impartial, fair and just court instead of political tool which decisions often escalate conflicts and rarely prevents them. Also ICC was first international court bring up charges of genocide and crimes against humanity in 2005 against Joseph Kony Alleged Commander-in-Chief of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) (He has yet to face trial). Betweem 1946-2005 there were quite many conflicts where genocidal actions did take a place and ICJ failed in every case to make any actions to prevent them, punish for them or even say they were bad. I think that Israel is wrong in their accusation that ICJ is antisemitic, it is just useless institution. Just look this ruling - Israel needs to do something to prevent genocide in Gaza, but they don't give any actual guidance or ordinance. And as there is no enforcement, other than push back from other countries. I am sure that intent is that countries will politically pressure Israel to be more "human" in their bombing spree, but it also give Israel enemies excuse to use military actions against them. I am sure that USA will be pathetic in their response, but if they had bit more political willingness to take hard line against Israel they could use ruling as stick to force South Africa and others BRICS - R countries to decrease their support for Russia, as Russia ignored ICJ ruling to stop their attack to Ukraine and BRICS countries have not shown any care for it. So as this ruling was because case that South Africa brought to court USA could easily use it to forward their global political agenda by using it as excuse to put trade and other sanctions against countries that supported the case but have not condemned Russia or/and support Russia (and/or China). But USA has too many internal political struggles to be effective in global politics like they used to be during Cold War.