3 ms·
I agree with you. I believe he even offered to present himself to Sweden if he could be guaranteed that he would not be extradited to the US. A Swedish prison w
by wbhart 7y ago
I agree with you. I believe he even offered to present himself to Sweden if he could be guaranteed that he would not be extradited to the US. A Swedish prison would be a country club in comparison. But I think the concern of the UN here is that the circumstances were prolonged due to the refusal of all states to abide by a more or less binding UN ruling.
- Tomte 7y ago> more or less binding UN ruling Less. As in "not at all binding".
- wbhart 7y ago"Binding", in that the parties had signed the convention and agreed to "uphold" such rulings. They instead claimed that "Assange was free to leave at any time", i.e. that they were "upholding" the ruling. At the very least, Assange would be entitled to compensation as a means of enforcing the ruling, should the states refuse to comply. Which court would rule about such compensation is not clear to me. Perhaps the European court of Human Rights, but that is speculation on my part.
- Tomte 7y agoYou're right, I concede that point.
- mises 7y agoRegardless of positions on the issue, it's important to recognize that the UN has essentially no power. The only time it does is when certain powerful member states (mostly security council) agree to back a measure. In other words, half the UN's member states voting to back a measure does not matter if said member states are small ones. Same is true of enforcement: there has to be consensus, which is unlikely to happen against America.