3 ms·
> However the UN declared it a violation of international law in 1965 The harsh reality is that it genuinely doesn't matter what the UN declares. General Assem
by sgjohnson 3y ago
> However the UN declared it a violation of international law in 1965
The harsh reality is that it genuinely doesn't matter what the UN declares. General Assembly resolutions are non-binding and are almost universally ignored.
The UN also is not the ultimate authority on international law. The countries subscribing to said international law are.
- vidarh 3y agoThe combination of the UN and the ICJ does however make it entirely reasonable to describe it as illegal, and that was the point I was addressing in response to a post implying people picked something they see as immoral and "just claim it's illegal". In this case the claim of illegality is backed up by a court the UK was one of the original proponents of, that the UK has presided over, that the UK was the first state to submit a case to. As such, whether or not the decision is enforceable it's quite a bit more than "just claiming it's illegal".
- pseudalopex 3y ago> The UN also is not the ultimate authority on international law. The countries subscribing to said international law are. The countries subscribing to said international law voted 116 to 6.
- sgjohnson 3y ago> The countries subscribing to said international law voted 116 to 6. Unless the 116 countries voting to uphold it are actually willing to do something about it, it's near completely meaningless. Can we stop pretending that the UN has power over anything?
- pseudalopex 3y agoYou declared an ultimate authority. I stated your ultimate authority's ruling. I was surprised you believed in international law. Is any action enough to make it meaningful? Do they have to start a war? Win the war?