The U.S. is unilaterally claiming that Security Council resolution 2728 is non-binding and therefore has no impact on its policy or the legality of Israel’s continued war. This is not so obvious… 🧵
First, interpreting UN Security Council resolutions is not straightforward. But basically, resolutions are meant to be expressions of the collective will of the council (n.b. since the U.S. abstained, it may not be best placed to unilaterally comment on it).
So the U.S. just asserting that the resolution is non-binding doesn't automatically make it so -- the U.S. is trying to advance a construction of the resolution that protects its legal position (here, in the context of continuing its foreign policy unchanged).
How do we figure out the will of the UNSC (the 14 members that voted in favour)? We turn to the principles of treaty interpretation contained in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. We try to figure out the 'ordinary meaning of the text in light of its object & purpose'.
This could be a looong discussion. But for now, note that para 1 of the resolution uses exhortatory language: "*Demands* an immediate ceasefire". "Demands" looks a lot more like it creates an obligation than, for example, language of "emphasizing", "calling upon", "urging", etc.
Finally, many of the states who spoke at the session today noted their understanding of the resolution as binding. (I'd have to go back to the transcript for a fuller picture, but several so noted).
A helpful argument for the bindingness of resolution 2728:
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.