Group blog of the European Journal of International Law, with lawyers and academics analyzing international law questions.
Commenters cite it for expert legal analysis, such as the ICJ South Africa v. Israel measures and the pager attacks, and note it carries views from multiple sides.
Annotated review of WHO draft agreements [1][2] to expand their powers over all countries globally. Note that the IHR amendments that will be voted upon in May 2023 only require the consent of 50% of countries to take effect, https://brownstone.org/articles/amendments-who-ihr-annotated-guide/
> The WHO proposes that the term ‘with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons’ be deleted from the text, replacing them with ‘equity, coherence, inclusivity,’ ... The underlying equality of individuals is removed, and rights become subject to a status determined by others based on a set of criteria that they define. This entirely upends the prior understanding of the relationship of all individuals with authority, at least in non-totalitarian states. It is a totalitarian approach to society, within which individuals may act only on the sufferance of others who wield power outside of legal sanction; specifically a feudal relationship, or one of monarch-subject without an intervening constitution.
[1] 2023 draft of 2023 IHR amendments, https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/index.html
[2] 2023 draft of 2025 treaty, https://docs.reclaimthenet.org/who-zero-draft-international-pandemic-treaty-february-2023.pdf
The best references are the primary WHO source documents. A better source of analysis than Brownstone is needed. An older (May 2022) analysis was published by an EU law journal,…
The Wikipedia article you quoted is misconstruing things. For example the actual ICJ finding was
> the Court is of the view that Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip has not entirely released it of its obligations under the law of occupation. Israel’s obligations have remained commensurate with the degree of its effective control over the Gaza Strip.
Clearly "regard[ing] the Gaza Strip to still be under military occupation by Israel" is not an accurate characterization of the court's finding. Marko Milanovic had a nice post [1] about possible interpretations of the court's ambiguous wording.
There's no way the court would have had a consensus for a finding that Gaza was plainly occupied; even this advisory opinion was opposed by 3 of 15 judges.
There have been plenty of attempts to correct inaccurate info like this on Wikipedia, but in the last few years it's become rather futile since editors with an anti-Israeli agenda are a strong majority. (See e.g. the updated definition of Zionism they pushed through: "as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible".)
[1] https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-occupation-of-gaza-in-the-icj-palestine-advisory-opinion/
I can't imagine Japan being too happy about it (https://www.ejiltalk.org/extended-continental-shelf-of-the-united-states-a-landmark-announcement-and-its-implications/):
> The Executive Summary makes clear that both Canada and The Bahamas have indicated they would not object to the CLCS considering the U.S. submission, but it does not mention any explicit assurance from Japan.
Indeed Japan is conspicuously left out (https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/ECS_Executive_Summary.pdf)
> ... Canada has advised the United States that it would not object to the consideration of a U.S. submission by the Commission, without prejudice both to the delineation of the outer limits of its own continental shelf and to the matters relating to the delimitation of boundaries in this region between the United States and Canada. The Bahamas has similarly advised the United States that it would not object to the consideration of a U.S. submission by the Commission, without prejudice both to the delineation of the outer limits of its own continental shelf and to the matters relating to the delimitation of boundaries in this region between the United States and The Bahamas.
To clarify, i meant shipping to neutral ports (article 99 of San Remo: "A blockade must not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States" https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/san-remo-manual-1994/article-93-108 ). Oman seems neutral in all this but nonetheless affected.
They would be allowed to blockade neutral ships going to enemy ports (e.g. Israel) subject to a bunch of rules but that doesn't seem to be what they are doing.
I dont even think Iran is claiming this is a blockade. They are claiming its part of its territorial waters, and they are claiming that they dont recognize the UNCLOS which would give vessels transit rights (but at the same time they are claiming they recognize the part of UNCLOS that allows claiming 12 miles out as territorial waters). At least that is what i got from https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-legality-of-irans-closure-of-the-strait-of-hormuz/
This goes to European Court of Human Rights. It may find out that cancelling election results was unnecessary.
https://www.ejiltalk.org/electoral-dysfunction-romanias-election-annulment-disinformation-and-echr-positive-obligations-to-combat-election-irregularities/
> Here, the opposite could be alleged- that Romania took action, but the action was too immediate and drastic than was called for in the circumstances. Considering how the Court expressed a critical view of overly drastic measures in cases such as the above-mentioned Kermiova v Azerbaijan, it is possible that the Court could similarly show a disdain for the expeditious actions taken by the domestic judiciary in Romania.
Also apparently most voters voted this candidate because of economic reasos, not due to Russian proximity.
> Afghanistan
Funny enough the current government of Afghanistan also rejects ICC jurisdiction and is not a full UN or US recognized state.[0]
> Palestinian
Which is not a full UN or US/Israel recognized state either.
> you can see why respectively the USA and Israel might have some issues
Yeah, from the US/Israel point of view trying to enforce jurisdiction of unrecognized enemy states is certainly problematic. Especially when in the US/Afghanistan case neither government seems to be granting the court any jurisdiction at all.
[0] https://www.ejiltalk.org/unrecognized-governments-and-the-icc-redux-could-afghanistan-withdraw-from-the-rome-statute/