Jump to content

Elerond

Members
  • Posts

    2620
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Posts posted by Elerond

  1. 2 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

    No.

    There's a difference between being enforceable and binding. The wording and it coming from the UNSC makes it 100% binding, that's intrinsic, what it requires is a subsequent resolution for enforcement if (when) ignored. John Kirby is being dishonest when he says it isn't binding, because what he means is that the US will not support enforcement- which, of course, as a paid up member of the Rules Based Order he cannot actually say, lest people wonder why the US only wants enforcement of international law against its enemies, not its friends.

    Same situation with the ICJ. Its decisions are 100% binding, but it has no enforcement mechanism. That is meant to come from the UNSC.

    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.

  2. 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.

  3. 5 hours ago, Malcador said:

    If you're talking about terrorist attacks, not sure military border defense is relevant.  Towers got dropped in NYC, that didn't mean the US military wasn't effective. 

    But ok, Russia is ripe to be overrun by ISIS.

    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.

    • Thanks 2
  4. 8 hours ago, melkathi said:

    The "they all voted for" is rather ironic coming from "the only democracy in the middle east".

    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.

  5. https://apnews.com/article/alabama-supreme-court-from-embryos-161390f0758b04a7638e2ddea20df7ca

    Quote

     The Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that frozen embryos can be considered children under state law

    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?

  6. 6 hours ago, Malcador said:

    Honestly am surprised he'd even bother trying to reach a Western audience at this point.  But worth watching it if Putin was condescending to Carlson.

    Also maybe one knock on effect might be more support for Ukraine as it's a little more in forefront as everyone will be angry at Putin

    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

  7. 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/

    • Like 1
  8. 12 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

    Eh, tribunal is a specific type of court in this context- and I can provide a plethora of sources calling it a court too, if I need to.

    The second part is an addition, no mention of it having to be an 'international institution' originally; but it any case they were establishedby the UN same as the ICJ so shares the exact same legitimacy. Which is the highest there is under international law. That they were established to look at a specific set of cases makes them no less an international institution than a domestic court established to look at a subset of cases- eg Family Court or the Waitangi Tribunal here- is a domestic institution.

    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. 

     

  9. 5 hours ago, Malcador said:

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/ben-gvir-slams-icj-as-antisemitic-says-israel-should-ignore-ruling-on-provisional-measures/

    "“The decision of the antisemitic court in The Hague proves what was already known: This court does not seek justice, but rather the persecution of Jewish people. They were silent during the Holocaust and today they continue the hypocrisy and take it another step further,” he says.

    The ICJ in its current iteration was founded in 1945."

    Point to the Times for that last sentence.

    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.

  10. 13 minutes ago, melkathi said:

    I think Netanyahu has exactly that to gain. If he got the hostages released, then on the Homefront he can possibly get at least the families of the hostages to back off a bit. Or divide them at least. Have those families busy taking care of their freed and obviously traumatized relatives. Nurse them back to health - all of Gaza is starving, obviously the hostages are too.

    At the same time, what preliminary measures could the ICJ impose when there is a ceasefire? He'd "win" the first round in the south Africa case by taking away what they seek measures against.*

    Then, two months later, with the ICJ case in the next, slow stage, he'd simply start the war again, with greater hone support, as there would be no fear of killing hostages, just land to grab for the settlers and "human animals" to exterminate.

    He'd just have to hang on for two months by bombing Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan and keeping things heated with Hesbolah (spelling?).

    Mind you, just theorising.

     

     

    * I do believe the ICJ would have loved a ceasefire, to get them out of having to rule on preliminary measures. Which also is a reason for Hamas Not to want one.

    Ceasefire or no ceasefire should not any way impact on ICJ's verdict is or isn't Israel committing genocide in Gaza. 

    • Like 1
  11. 9 hours ago, melkathi said:

    Netanyahu 's position isn't "we won't stop until the hostages are released" if his position also is "if the hostages are released we won't stop".

     

    I want a full permanent ceasefire (and obviously Netanyahu jailed in Azkaban). But you can't have a full ceasefire when one party says they are not willing to accept a full ceasefire.

    Hostages returned for a full ceasefire was on the table until now, constantly rejected by Israel.

     

    So stop trying to make it look as if the rest of us are against a ceasefire and look at the terrorists you so vehemently support with your crocodile tears.

    Neither Netanhyahu or Hamas want full ceasefire. Offers of ceasefire is just to show for world and looking time for resupply.

    In political sense Netanhyahu has little to gain from the ceasefire, he has failed in what has been his driving promise, to keep Israel safe. The war in Gaza will prevent his ousting at least for the time and gives him opportunity to ensure that he will not lose his political power. Also it seem that big sunk of people of Israel aren't keen to see war ending before Hamas is destroyed which probably will not happen anytime soon.

    Hamas has hostages because of act of terrorism, it has no legimate reason to keep hostages and it does not seem to have any clear goal what they want to achieve with the hostages. And Hamas does not promise to stop their attacks to Israel even in case Israel promises full ceasefire and because of Hamas' structure they probably don't even have ability to make such promise even if their leadership wanted to do so.

    • Like 1
  12. 39 minutes ago, Malcador said:

    That's Andrew Tate, I think.

    It is not always easy to say which of them has said something if you don't see author of the comment

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html
     

    Quote

    Most of his ideas stem from a gnawing anxiety around gender. “The masculine spirit is under assault,” he told me. “It’s obvious.”

    In Mr. Peterson’s world, order is masculine. Chaos is feminine. And if an overdose of femininity is our new poison, Mr. Peterson knows the cure. Hence his new book’s subtitle: “An Antidote to Chaos.”

    “We have to rediscover the eternal values and then live them out,” he says.

    Mr. Peterson, 55, a University of Toronto psychology professor turned YouTube philosopher turned mystical father figure, has emerged as an influential thought leader. The messages he delivers range from hoary self-help empowerment talk (clean your room, stand up straight) to the more retrograde and political (a society run as a patriarchy makes sense and stems mostly from men’s competence; the notion of white privilege is a farce ). He is the stately looking, pedigreed voice for a group of culture warriors who are working diligently to undermine mainstream and liberal efforts to promote equality. 

     

  13. 2 hours ago, BruceVC said:

    I do think he is a really bad leader for  whats best for Israel, I dont believe he knew about the attacks because the surprise attack has  inexorably undermined  much of his right-wing rhetoric which is "  I am best person to protect the Jewish homeland, stick with me " 

    And his political career is over once this latest war is over.  He has demonstrated he doesnt mind creating political or societal chaos  in Israel if it suits his right-wing views,  like when he wanted  to make those changes around the courts authority and the powers of the Knesset 

    But I dont  believe he would willingly allow Jews to die if they knew Hamas was going to attack on the 7 October 

    He was warned multiple times that Hamas was planning to attack, but those warnings were ignored mainly because over confidence in Israel's defenses and stubborn thinking that Hamas does not have capacity to attack even though evidence showed differently

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67958260

    • Hmmm 1
  14. 15 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

    Linguistically, it's really interesting: Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Iceland are all close to each other, whereas Finland is far removed from all of them.

    The former Finnish president Tarja Halonen made a clear distinction between Finland and the Baltic countries, claiming that we are part of Scandinavia, not the Baltics. Fair enough, but if you look at it from a linguistic point of view, Finland is right next door to Estonia and very far away from Scandinavia.

    Yes, but because of Sweden 700 year rule over Finland and first converting Finns to Christianity through three crusades and then converting them to Lutheranism and ordering creation of written language for Finnish in order to steal Catholic church money for their Gustav Wasa's funds, Sweden and Finland have formed much closer cultural ties than Finland and Estonia.

    Also Finland's ties to Denmark, Norway and Iceland are closer because first Denmark ruled all Nordic countries during Kalmar union and then Sweden took over and ruled most of the Nordics. What little of  Finno-Ugric past there was left was saved by Swedish speaking Finns Elias Lönnrot, Johan Runeberg and Johan Snellman when they were forefront of united meaning of Finnishness in 1800s.

    Also in Geographical sense part of Finland belongs in Scandinavian Peninsula, so technically we Finland is part of Scandinavia, although generally we don't count us as part of Scandinavia even if Finland's highest points Halti and Saana fells are part of Scandinavian mountains. 

    • Like 2
  15. 1 hour ago, melkathi said:

    Bruce, we hope the ruling will be based on the evidence. Because any person who honestly looks at the facts knows that Israel is guilty.

    But the individual judges aren't impartial. They are human beings and part of the societies they grew up in. People will always expect a US American to not vote based on facts but on US policy. As a German citizen I am not going to trust the German judge until he proves me wrong. He is more than welcome to do so. But if you were to follow the nosedive in freedom of press in Germany the past few years, the extreme bias in reporting, not just on this issue, I am terrified of the direction Germany is heading. We have seen where that leads before.

    And of course everyone will expect the judge from Lebanon to vote against Israel.

    ICJ's rulings don't have much of impact, like for example

     

  16. 6 hours ago, uuuhhii said:

    wait does finland count as nordic

    Finland is part of Nordic countries.

    Nordic countries are Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden.

    Often Nordic coubtries are mixed with Scandinavian countries, which are Denmark, Norway and Sweden, although some could argue that Denmark isn't really part of Scandinavian Peninsula

    • Thanks 1
  17. 3 hours ago, Keyrock said:

    But Russia doesn't share a border with Sweden. They can't just teleport tanks and troops to Sweden, how do you propose Russian troops reach Sweden without crossing a NATO nation's land, waters, or airspace?

    Technically Sweden and Russia share maritime border in international waters, meaning that Russian troops can go from Kaliningrad to Sweden without crossing any Nato nation's land, waters or airspace. Also there is international waters from Saint Petersburg to Sweden and also from Atlantic ocean to western side of southern Sweden.

    image.thumb.jpeg.fd07ef1a2552e942fcab1a798585c97d.jpeg

    • Thanks 2
  18. 20 hours ago, Malcador said:

    https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/12/1144447

    US might as well file their veto now

    It would be first time after 1959 when soviets blocked resolution against Vietnam because of their aggression towards Laos. Usually countries that opposite issues that have been brought up using article 99 just refuse to participate in the vote. Although last time when article 99 was invoked was in 1989 for Lebanon crisis.

×
×
  • Create New...