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:
“A civilization has been wiped out in Gaza.” A few things🧵
As many point out, this is an admission of complicity in genocide. But it’s actually worse than that—it’s an admission of genocide PLUS.
Genocide refers to certain acts undertaken with ‘intent to destroy’ a protected group, ‘in whole or in part’. These acts are found at Article II of the Genocide Convention. As you can see, a single act can constitute the crime of genocide.
There is nothing like a requirement for total physical destruction of a group. While there’s debate on this, limited acts of genocide generally are required to take place within circumstances where at least partial destruction is a plausible reality.
Today's ICC arrest warrants against Israeli PM Netanyahu & Yoav Gallant—and Hamas' Deif—are momentous. This is the first time Western-allied leaders have been charged by an international court with war crimes and crimes against humanity. A 🧵on what we have—and don't have—today.
First, note that the pre-trial chamber decisions to issue the warrants have been kept secret to protect witnesses and the ongoing investigations. The ICC has issued summaries of the decisions here icc-cpi.int/news/situation… and here icc-cpi.int/news/situation…
The pre-trial chamber also rejected Israel's challenge to the ICC's jurisdiction—here icc-cpi.int/news/situation…—as well as its request to stay proceedings— here icc-cpi.int/court-record/i…. I'll address the warrants first, then these decisions.
Some disjointed thread-y thoughts as we go along... 🧵 Up now: Anti-Zionist theory and Practice Nasser Abourahme
What is needed is radical forgetting of Europe, to resist reading the struggle through the primary prism of Jewish Question. #TheAntiZionistIdea @UofTLaw
"The content of Zionist subjectivity is the violence of the Palestinian-settler. The terms of praxis are the colonial relation itself. We must begin with the cosmo-political world of Palestinian resistance; the fate of western Jewish anti-Zionism is how it relates to Palestinian struggle"
'The point is the opening of futures not predetermined by the past... Struggle is part of the unavoidable condition of being or speaking Palestinian. It is only in the revolutionary act that the Palestinian subject might emerge.'
There is good reason to believe that Sinwar was, in fact, murdered by the IDF. Rather than celebrating death using inflammatory language of "elimination", Canada should be demanding that Israel comply with an independent investigation into the circumstances of Sinwar's death. 🧵
Briefly for now: individuals who are rendered 'hors to combat' (no longer in the fight) by virtue of wounding cannot be targeted. To do so is a violation of common article 3 to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and a war crime under the art. 8(2)(c)(i) of the Rome Statute.
The relevant question is whether Sinwar was incapacitated by his wounds such that he was disabled from participating in fighting and no longer posed a threat. This question is easier to answer when fighters are unconscious or on the ground.
I'll be live-tweeting Birju Dattani's talk at @OsgoodeNews @YorkUniversity, "Crossroads: Anti-Palestinian Racism, Islamophobia & Anti-Semitism" (w-@SherylNestel as discussant). Dattani asks: "Is human rights law fit for purpose?" 🧵 osgoode.yorku.ca/events/human-r…
The Arab-Canadian Lawyers' Association says that Anti-Palestinian racism should be included among existing human rights protections. CRT analysis shows how definitions can be manipulated in a political manner. Definitions are not needed by movements to fight oppression.
An important read. It’s personally & collectively terrifying to cognitively confront what we all know—that with each reinfection more of us become vulnerable & fewer of us are meaningfully supported. For each of the past 3 years I’ve been infected twice=6 total known infections🧵
Like @Flannsplainer my longterm symptoms related to covid set in after the first few infections. I’m also quadruple vaxxed. Last year I was also “regularly overcome by a sensation that I can only describe as a full-body panic attack, marked by a racing heart and rapid breathing”.
@Flannsplainer (I hesitate to put all this out there as it’s all so personal and destabilising and difficult-to-impossible to understand. But if there are *2 million* Canadians in the same boat then, holy shit, I have an obligation to share.)