Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah

pbs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 203 posts

Re: ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah

#11

Post by immibis »

tsimionescu wrote: post #7
markus_zhang wrote: post #6

The ICJ is powerless. How does it purpose to enforce it, or anything?

First of all, the mere existence of this ruling should be a guiding star for discourse on the topic. It's unacceptable for so much discourse to claim that there Israel is "just defending itself" when there are actual independent legal experts, with no hidden motives, pouring over the details and concluding that they are slaughtering civilians. So even if no enforcement of any kind happened, it would still be worth it…

They will simply claim everyone involved is a Hamas operative, there is no genocide in Ba Sing Se, and they are still just defending themselves. I also remind you that the USA has a law on the books authorizing the invasion of any country which attempts to enforce any international court order which the USA disagrees with.

Re: ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah

#12

Post by immibis »

tsimionescu wrote: post #10
mmastrac wrote: post #2

One of the interesting reasons that the UN Security Council has vetoes is to prevent this sort of situation with Israel and Russia where the court appears powerless because the powers simply ignore the rulings, or retaliate against the court as Russia did this week [1] and the US would do so if any of their members were charged [2]. The UN's organizational structure reflects the (unfair but real) power imbalances in…

I think you're right about the reason for the veto powers of the world's super powers at the UN Security Council. It's a pragmatic, though unjust, way of ensuring that they participate in the UN at all. Unfortunately, even so, they often ignore UN Security Council decisions even if they happen to pass - like the USA recently allowing the Israel-Gaza ceasefire resolution to pass, then immediately turning around and ab…

Speaking of climate, today Germany is claiming that climate protestors must be punished like the mafia: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/23/...

Re: ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah

#13

Post by immibis »

bluish29 wrote: post #4
mmastrac wrote: post #2

One of the interesting reasons that the UN Security Council has vetoes is to prevent this sort of situation with Israel and Russia where the court appears powerless because the powers simply ignore the rulings, or retaliate against the court as Russia did this week [1] and the US would do so if any of their members were charged [2]. The UN's organizational structure reflects the (unfair but real) power imbalances in…

> The alternative to this unfair structure is no United Nations, and no place for countries to come to the table which is potentially worse. Why the alternative is no united nations instead of equal and real representation of international community without bunch of countries having veto power.

What does that even mean? If you do something the USA doesn't like, you get nuked (metaphorically or literally). That is how it is, court or no court. What good is a group that pretends to be "real representation of international community" if the USA can still override it with nukes?

The UN veto attempts to at least make the process transparent. A veto is like a promise "we will drop nukes on you if you try this, so don't." It's much better to find out that way, than to find out by having a nuclear bomb dropped on your head from a military jet.

Re: ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah

#14

Post by implements »

During the Falklands War there were discussions in British political circles about what death toll would be unacceptable to liberate 1,800 people from Argentine occupation and rule - a calculus on the value of human life vs geopolitical concerns, I guess.

The global consensus seems to be that Israel’s current actions have become excessive - if that’s true, I wonder where the line between legitimate and illegitimate responses to being attacked by a semi-State actor like Hamas is?

Genuine question - I don’t understand how a state would go about determining an ethical response in this circumstance (leaving aside wider positions on the nature of the I/P conflict itself).

Re: ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah

#15

Post by mmastrac »

bluish29 wrote: post #8
mmastrac wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just how things work. The League of Nations failed largely because it lacked the participation and support of major powers. The United States, despite being a principal architect of the League, never joined [1]. This lack of participation undermined the its legitimacy and effectiveness. The veto power was established at the founding of the UN in 1945 as a reflection of the state of the world following World War…

You are contradicting yourself. If the world power participation in UN is vital to its role but at the same time nothing outside the conflicted power between them then why do you think UN is more than a club of world power extended to include some people from thr outside? And what actually prevented a global conflict after the world war II is not the UN succeeding into what League of nations, it is nuclear war and MA…

I don't think I'm contradicting myself - I think the UN is a mutually-beneficial, shared illusion that works only when the major powers that go into it believe that it works.

The most cynical view of the UN is that it is a club of the five major members that happens to include the rest of the world, yeah. But the power of the shared illusion gives it broad acceptance. And even if enforcement is uneven, the broad acceptance of the UN's role provides it with a degree of moral and political authority.

Re: ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah

#16

Post by dragonwriter »

markus_zhang wrote: post #6

The ICJ is powerless. How does it purpose to enforce it, or anything?

> The ICJ is powerless. How does it purpose to enforce it, or anything?

It's not its job to do that, it is a judicial not an executive body.

Unfortunately, the UN’s executive decisionmaking body is, unlike the court, fairly consistently faithless to the law where any of the pet interests of the P5 members whoe exercise vetos over it are concerned, and protecting Israel from any consequences from its lawbreaking (even where the US fully acknowledges that it is lawbreaking, as in the case of continued settlement expansion) is a pet interest of the US.

Re: ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah

#17

Post by runarberg »

immibis wrote: post #11
tsimionescu wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, the mere existence of this ruling should be a guiding star for discourse on the topic. It's unacceptable for so much discourse to claim that there Israel is "just defending itself" when there are actual independent legal experts, with no hidden motives, pouring over the details and concluding that they are slaughtering civilians. So even if no enforcement of any kind happened, it would still be worth it…

They will simply claim everyone involved is a Hamas operative, there is no genocide in Ba Sing Se, and they are still just defending themselves. I also remind you that the USA has a law on the books authorizing the invasion of any country which attempts to enforce any international court order which the USA disagrees with.

I was under the impression that that was just the ICC, as a) USA is not a member of the Rome Statute, b) the ICC prosecutes individuals, not state actors, and c) USA has a really extreme policy of protecting their citizens—even guilty those guilty of crimes—from foreign jurisdictions.

The ICJ on the other hand is just a tribunal which orders and advises states and international organizations.

Re: ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah

#18

Post by tsimionescu »

immibis wrote: post #11
tsimionescu wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, the mere existence of this ruling should be a guiding star for discourse on the topic. It's unacceptable for so much discourse to claim that there Israel is "just defending itself" when there are actual independent legal experts, with no hidden motives, pouring over the details and concluding that they are slaughtering civilians. So even if no enforcement of any kind happened, it would still be worth it…

They will simply claim everyone involved is a Hamas operative, there is no genocide in Ba Sing Se, and they are still just defending themselves. I also remind you that the USA has a law on the books authorizing the invasion of any country which attempts to enforce any international court order which the USA disagrees with.

I believe that law is slightly more limited - they reserve the right to invade anyone who attempts to prosecute US citizens and particularly US military in international courts. I don't think it extends this type of protection to allies. At least the infamous "Hague Invasion Act" doesn't.

Re: ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah

#19

Post by dragonwriter »

mmastrac wrote: post #2

One of the interesting reasons that the UN Security Council has vetoes is to prevent this sort of situation with Israel and Russia where the court appears powerless because the powers simply ignore the rulings, or retaliate against the court as Russia did this week [1] and the US would do so if any of their members were charged [2]. The UN's organizational structure reflects the (unfair but real) power imbalances in…

> One of the interesting reasons that the UN Security Council has vetoes is to prevent this sort of situation with Israel and Russia where the court appears powerless because the powers simply ignore the rulings, or retaliate against the court as Russia did this week [1] and the US would do so if any of their members were charged [2].

Note that this discussion is conflating two different courts, the ICJ which is the court for disputes between nations in the UN system, and the ICC, a newer court to which parties to the Rome Statute have delegated some part of their (universal, under international law) jurisidiction over individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and, most recently, aggression.

But that's also not the reason for the veto; in fact, the veto contributes to this problem with the ICJ.

> The alternative to this unfair structure is no United Nations, and no place for countries to come to the table which is potentially worse.

That's obviously an alternative, other alternatives exist, including one with a weaker but extent international body for nations to come to the table (proven, the League of Nations existed), and ones with a stronger body, with its own organic capabilities (and potentially greater independent legitimacy, e.g., by direct election of some key officers rather than appointment by member states.)

The UN isn't the only possible international federation.

Re: ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah

#20

Post by tsimionescu »

immibis wrote: post #12
tsimionescu wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're right about the reason for the veto powers of the world's super powers at the UN Security Council. It's a pragmatic, though unjust, way of ensuring that they participate in the UN at all. Unfortunately, even so, they often ignore UN Security Council decisions even if they happen to pass - like the USA recently allowing the Israel-Gaza ceasefire resolution to pass, then immediately turning around and ab…

Speaking of climate, today Germany is claiming that climate protestors must be punished like the mafia: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/23/...

Ah yes, the German Greens, truly the party of environmentalism... I would be almost shocked if I hadn't long become accustomed to my own country's extreme disconnect between the claimed doctrine of each party and their actual politics.
Post reply on HN