ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah
1–10 of 203 posts
Re: ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah
#2One 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 world, and that structure ensures that it continues to exist.
The alternative to this unfair structure is no United Nations, and no place for countries to come to the table which is potentially worse.
I don't know how you could make a world-level government with enforcement work given the current imbalance of powers between the top and bottom parts of the power scale.
EDIT: Why the downvotes? Is this not how the world works? I'd be interested in seeing why the disagreement.
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-ukraine-war-intern...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
Re: ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah
#3[deleted]
Re: ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah
#4One 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.
Re: ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah
#5One 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.
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 II. The major powers were given veto power to get their buy-in and participation. Without this mechanism, these powers might not have joined or supported the UN, undermining its formation and initial effectiveness.
If the veto power were removed, the major powers might feel that their core interests and national security concerns could be overridden by the majority [2], leading to their withdrawal from the UN, and significantly weakening the organization's influence and capacity to act.
There's no real authority in any of these bodies, only the appearance and illusion of legitimacy which requires buy-in from its strongest members.
[1] https://history.state.gov/milestones/1914-1920/league
[2] From above:
> Motivated by Republican concerns that the League would commit the United States to an expensive organization that would reduce the United States’ ability to defend its own interests, Lodge led the opposition to joining the League. Where Wilson and the League’s supporters saw merit in an international body that would work for peace and collective security for its members, Lodge and his supporters feared the consequences of involvement in Europe’s tangled politics, now even more complex because of the 1919 peace settlement.
Re: ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah
#6The ICJ is powerless. How does it purpose to enforce it, or anything?
Re: ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah
#7The 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 to get an informed and unbiased opinion like this out there.
Second of all, countries which are currently helping Israel in its slaughter have internal laws that can be invoked, through their court systems if need be, that should take this ICJ opinion into consideration when evaluating if the government should instead prohibit arms and other aid to Israel in this matter. So there is at least some glimmer of a chance for actual pressure from this ruling. It will take some time to materialize, of course.
Re: ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
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 MAD doctrine. UN is currently a place so inneffective outside the general stuff that the veto countries can agree.
Again you are describing the current status que not how a real equal international community should work. Because currently when you hear that international community is behind it is usually US and some of their allies who are actual minority of humans [1]
Re: ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah
#9One 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.
because the reality is, some nations have nuclear weapons and colossal economic power, and some don't.
Re: ICJ orders Israel to stop military operation in Rafah
#10One 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 absurdly claiming that a UN security council resolution is non-binding. So even like, it's unclear how much the system actually works.
However, I don't agree that this means the ICJ or ICC should just not give decisions that they can't enforce. Ultimately these courts stand as unbiased observers on the world stage, and their opinions can be used by the countries making up the UN to guide their own actions. Ideally, the world's media should also pay close attention and guide its own reporting as well based on the decisions (and rationale for those decisions).
Much like the UN's climate panel, there is real value in having a panel of domain experts present an informed, unbiased, opinion on world matters, even if they can't directly enforce anything.