The special relationship between the UK and the US at times leaves the awkward feeling that the UK makes a lot of commitments - and the US, not necessarily. So far I count two big UK concessions: 1) Huawei (see here) and (1/2)
2) Iran. The UK co-negotiated the Iran deal and wants to protect it. Bolton seems to want to escalate the Iran conflict. May refused to be part of that, refused to join the US Hormuz mission, opted for a European one and got commitments from France and Germany... (2/3)
The new government abandoned that plan, joined the US in Hormuz - which France and Germany refused to do, fearing an escalation of the conflict. (3/3)
To clarify on Hormuz: a European mission was far from secured. It is unclear whether Germany has the naval capacity to participate. So abandoning that mission was maybe no great sacrifice, but joining the US one when the US is not the most... thoughtful... in its Iran policy...
Is nevertheless a huge concession.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"The ICC is a basic achievement of the international community that Germany always supported. Germany respects its independence and its procedures as those of other international courts. /2
Part of that is that that the pretrial chamber now has to decide on the applications of the chief prosecutor. /3
I know some will brush off @RishiSunak 's comments on the ECtHR and the ECHR as irrelevant given that his days in office are almost over. They are not. They are dangerous for the UK and show some politicians have not learned a thing. Why? /1
First: Once again a UK leader makes a commitment to leave an international system to limit immigration without any regard to the impact of leaving. That impact? /2
The UK was instrumental in drafting the ECHR. The agreement is at the core of the Council of Europe, underlies the good Friday agreement and the TCA. Leaving it means the UK leaves the CoE, destroys the Belfast Agreement and ultimately terminates significant chunks of the TCA. /3
Sorry to emphasize this again, but please note the "direct and public incitement to commit genocide" aspect of the case, which weirdly is often left out of commentary on the ICJ case. It is incredibly important. /1
South Africa submitted numerous statements that show that a cavalier attitude has developed to say truly horrendous things. Now that does not equal showing a state policy of genocide. But it is deeply troubling. And the court decided to remind Israel of what needs to be done /2
And the order of the Court in this regard is all the more stronger by who voted for it: Also Israel's ad hoc judge Barak, the former President of Israel's Supreme Court. /3
Some thoughts on the South Africa-Israel case before the ICJ, as I am unhappy with some comments. I’ll try to keep this untechnical. /1
1) South Africa files the case as a state party to the genocide convention against Israel as another state party alleging violations of the convention. This is permissible, as every state party is held to have an interest in upholding the convention.
2) This is not the first time that this has happened. The Gambia has filed a case concerning genocide against Myanmar. If you are interested… icj-cij.org/case/178
Ofcom has published a list of swearwords by degree of offensiveness, which really is a f****** great service for non-native speakers. So here it is (thread)