Thread by @Alonso_GD

O senhor se equivoca. Existe um motivo claro porque o Brasil se recusou a incorporar o direito de auto-defesa na resolução. Mas, I will explain in English, because it's late. In fact, Brazil's decision should be praised, not condemned. 🧵

https://twitter.com/SF_Moro/status/1714742029958123579

Under the UN Charter, a state can only use force against another in cases of self-defence or authorisation by the UN Security Council (UNSC). This is traditionally understood as the right that states have vis a vis only other states, not Non-State Actors (NSAs).

Since 9/11, the US has been trying to expand the concept of self-defence to also cover NSAs. In other words, that the US can attack NSAs in the territory of other states in "self-defence" without violating the UN Charter or the attacked state's sovereignty.

Thus, UNSC Resolution 1373, approved immediately after 9/11, stated that the attacks activated the US' right to "self-defence". Implicitly, of course, this meant self-defence *against al Qaeda*, not Afghanistan

This was technically not how #intlaw worked but it was 9/11 and so it was not the time to, let's say, get technical with the US. After all, it's only a UNSC Resolution, right?

Well, since then, things have gotten considerably worse. The US' entire drone programme is premised on the idea that it can target terrorists suspects in Pakistan, pirates in Somalia, armed groups in Yemen... heck, even cartels in Mexico

The US does this under a new proposed reading of the UN Charter, which they call the "unwilling or unable standard", which says that if a state is deemed unwilling or unable (by the US) to control a NSA deemed a threat (by the US) then the US can drone said NSA

Logically, this is a very rotten deal for all those countries in the world where a NSA operates and who can potentially be bombed by the US. So, throughout the 2010s, Global South states have tried to find ways to contain this new reading, with Brazil being a key part of it

In 2018, for example, during a meeting of the American Society of Int Law, a Brazilian diplomat, Patrick Luna, made Brazil's position crystal clear (see image). Luna's speech was very widely read within intlaw circles and has remained very infuential.

In 2021, Mexico called for a meeting (called an Arria) on the topic of use of force against NSA, specifically hoping to challenge the unwilling or unable standard. Brazil, this time under the Bolsonaro govt btw, repeated its position:

Now consider Gaza. As far as Brazil is concerned, Palestine is a state, no matter what the US might believe. In that state there is a NSA (Hamas). And once again there's a "9/11 moment" where Israel wants to squeeze the right of self-defence against NSA into a UNSC Resolution.

It would certainly be easier to placate the Moros of this world and let it slide, given the times. That Brazil is sticking to principle in the face of enormous int'l pressure is rather remarkable. Brazil is not letting intlaw be eroded further. And that is worth being proud of

Então, irmãos, fiquem orgulhosos da sua terra, que a gente agradece!