#international human rights treaties

[detainedstaffday]

Convention on the safety of the United Nations and Associated personnel.

This Convention applies in respect of United Nations and associated personnel and United Nations operations, as defined in article 1. This Convention shall not apply to a United Nations operation authorized by the United Nations Security Council as an enforcement action under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations in which any of the personnel are engaged as combatants against organized armed forces and to which the law of international armed conflict applies. Article 3 -Identification

The military and police components of a United Nations operation and their vehicles, vessels and aircraft shall bear distinctive identification. Other personnel, vehicles, vessels and aircraft involved in the United Nations operation shall be appropriately identified unless otherwise decided by the Secretary-General of the United Nation; All United Nations and associated personnel shall carry appropriate identification documents. Article 4 - Agreements on the status of the operation The host State and the United Nations shall conclude as soon as possible an agreement on the status of the United Nations operation and all personnel engaged in the operation including, inter alia, provisions on privileges and immunities for military and police components of the operation. Article 5 - Transit A transit State shall facilitate the unimpeded transit of United Nations and associated personnel and their equipment to and from the host State. Article 6 - Respect for laws and regulations

Without prejudice to such privileges and immunities as they may enjoy or to the requirements of their duties, United Nations and associated personnel shall: (a) Respect the laws and regulations of the host State and the transit State; and (b) Refrain from any action or activity incompatible with the impartial and international nature of their duties. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall take all appropriate measures to ensure the observance of these obligations. Article 7 - Duty to ensure the safety and security of United Nations and associated personnel

United Nations and associated personnel, their equipment and premises shall not be made the object of attack or of any action that prevents them from discharging their mandate. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure the safety and security of United Nations and associated personnel. In particular, States Parties shall take all appropriate steps to protect United Nations and associated personnel who are deployed in their territory from the crimes set out in article 9. States Parties shall cooperate with the United Nations and other States Parties, as appropriate, in the implementation of this Convention, particularly in any case where the host State is unable itself to take the required measures. Article 8 - Duty to release or return

United Nations and associated personnel captured or detained Except as otherwise provided in an applicable status-of-forces agreement, if United Nations or associated personnel are captured or detained in the course of the performance of their duties and their identification has been established, they shall not be subjected to interrogation and they shall be promptly released and returned to United Nations or other appropriate authorities. Pending their release such personnel shall be treated in accordance with universally recognized standards of human rights and the principles and spirit of the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Article 9 - Crimes against United Nations and associated personnel

The intentional commission of: (a) A murder, kidnapping or other attack upon the person or liberty of any United Nations or associated personnel; (b) A violent attack upon the official premises, the private accommodation or the means of transportation of any United Nations or associated personnel likely to endanger his or her person or liberty; (c) A threat to commit any such attack with the objective of compelling a physical or juridical person to do or to refrain from doing any act; (d) An attempt to commit any such attack; and (e) An act constituting participation as an accomplice in any such attack, or in an attempt to commit such attack, or in organizing or ordering others to commit such attack, shall be made by each State Party a crime under its national law. Each State Party shall make the crimes set out in paragraph 1 punishable by appropriate penalties which shall take into account their grave nature. Article 10 - Establishment of jurisdiction

Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the crimes set out in article 9 in the following cases: (a) When the crime is committed in the territory of that State or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State; (b) When the alleged offender is a national of that State. A State Party may also establish its jurisdiction over any such crime when it is committed: (a) By a stateless person whose habitual residence is in that State; or (b) With respect to a national of that State; or (c) In an attempt to compel that State to do or to abstain from doing any act. Any State Party which has established jurisdiction as mentioned in paragraph 2 shall notify the Secretary-General of the United Nations. If such State Party subsequently rescinds that jurisdiction, it shall notify the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the crimes set out in article 9 in cases where the alleged offender is present in its territory and it does not extradite such person pursuant to article 15 to any of the States Parties which have established their jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 1 or 2. This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law. Article 11 - Prevention of crimes against United Nations and associated personnel

States Parties shall cooperate in the prevention of the crimes set out in article 9, particularly by: (a) Taking all practicable measures to prevent preparations in their respective territories for the commission of those crimes within or outside their territories; and (b) Exchanging information in accordance with their national law and coordinating the taking of administrative and other measures as appropriate to prevent the commission of those crimes. Article 12 - Communication of information

Under the conditions provided for in its national law, the State Party in whose territory a crime set out in article 9 has been committed shall, if it has reason to believe that an alleged offender has fled from its territory, communicate to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and, directly or through the Secretary-General, to the State or States concerned all the pertinent facts regarding the crime committed and all available information regarding the identity of the alleged offender. Whenever a crime set out in article 9 has been committed, any State Party which has information concerning the victim and circumstances of the crime shall endeavour to transmit such information, under the conditions provided for in its national law, fully and promptly to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the State or States concerned. Article 13 - Measures to ensure prosecution or extradition

Where the circumstances so warrant, the State Party in whose territory the alleged offender is present shall take the appropriate measures under its national law to ensure that person’s presence for the purpose of prosecution or extradition.

Measures taken in accordance with paragraph 1 shall be notified, in conformity with national law and without delay, to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and, either directly or through the Secretary-General, to: (a) The State where the crime was committed; (b) The State or States of which the alleged offender is a national or, if such person is a stateless person, in whose territory that person has his or her habitual residence; (c) The State or States of which the victim is a national; and (d) Other interested States. Article 14 - Prosecution of alleged offenders The State Party in whose territory the alleged offender is present shall, if it does not extradite that person, submit, without exception whatsoever and without undue delay, the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution, through proceedings in accordance with the law of that State. Those authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of an ordinary offence of a grave nature under the law of that State. Article 15 - Extradition of alleged offenders

To the extent that the crimes set out in article 9 are not extraditable offences in any extradition treaty existing between States Parties, they shall be deemed to be included as such therein. States Parties undertake to include those crimes as extraditable offences in every extradition treaty to be concluded between them. If a State Party which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it has no extradition treaty, it may at its option consider this Convention as the legal basis for extradition in respect of those crimes. Extradition shall be subject to the conditions provided in the law of the requested State. States Parties which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize those crimes as extraditable offences between themselves subject to the conditions provided in the law of the requested State. Each of those crimes shall be treated, for the purposes of extradition between States Parties, as if it had been committed not only in the place in which it occurred but also in the territories of the States Parties which have established their jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 1 or 2 of article 10. Article 16 - Mutual assistance in criminal matters

States Parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal proceedings brought in respect of the crimes set out in article 9, including assistance in obtaining evidence at their disposal necessary for the proceedings. The law of the requested State shall apply in all cases.

The provisions of paragraph 1 shall not affect obligations concerning mutual assistance embodied in any other treaty. Article 17- Fair treatment

Any person regarding whom investigations or proceedings are being carried out in connection with any of the crimes set out in article 9 shall be guaranteed fair treatment, a fair trial and full protection of his or her rights at all stages of the investigations or proceedings. Any alleged offender shall be entitled: (a) To communicate without delay with the nearest appropriate representative of the State or States of which such person is a national or which is otherwise entitled to protect that person’s rights or, if such person is a stateless person, of the State which, at that person’s request, is willing to protect that person’s rights; and (b) To be visited by a representative of that State or those States. Article 18 - Notification of outcome of proceedings The State Party where an alleged offender is prosecuted shall communicate the final outcome of the proceedings to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit the information to other States Parties. Article 19 - Dissemination The States Parties undertake to disseminate this Convention as widely as possible and, in particular, to include the study thereof, as well as relevant provisions of international humanitarian law, in their programmes of military instruction. Article 20 - Savings clauses Nothing in this Convention shall affect: (a) The applicability of international humanitarian law and universally recognized standards of human rights as contained in international instruments in relation to the protection of United Nations operations and United Nations and associated personnel or the responsibility of such personnel to respect such law and standards; (b) The rights and obligations of States, consistent with the Charter of the United Nations, regarding the consent to entry of persons into their territories; (c) The obligation of United Nations and associated personnel to act in accordance with the terms of the mandate of a United Nations operation; (d) The right of States which voluntarily contribute personnel to a United Nations operation to withdraw their personnel from participation in such operation; or (e) The entitlement to appropriate compensation payable in the event of death, disability, injury or illness attributable to peace-keeping service by persons voluntarily contributed by States to United Nations operations. Article 21 - Right of self-defence Nothing in this Convention shall be construed so as to derogate from the right to act in self-defence. Article 22 - Dispute settlement

Any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention which is not settled by negotiation shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration. If within six months from the date of the request for arbitration the parties are unable to agree on the organization of the arbitration, any one of those parties may refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice by application in conformity with the Statute of the Court. Each State Party may at the time of signature, ratification, acceptance or approval of this Convention or accession thereto declare that it does not consider itself bound by all or part of paragraph 1. The other States Parties shall not be bound by paragraph 1 or the relevant part thereof with respect to any State Party which has made such a reservation. Any State Party which has made a reservation in accordance with paragraph 2 may at any time withdraw that reservation by notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Article 23 - Review meetings At the request of one or more States Parties, and if approved by a majority of States Parties, the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall convene a meeting of the States Parties to review the implementation of the Convention, and any problems encountered with regard to its application. Article 24 - Signature This Convention shall be open for signature by all States, until 31 December 1995, at United Nations Headquarters in New York. Article 25 - Ratification, acceptance or approval This Convention is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval. Instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Article 26 Accession This Convention shall be open for accession by any State. The instruments of accession shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Article 27 -Entry into force

This Convention shall enter into force thirty days after twenty-two instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession have been deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. For each State ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to the Convention after the deposit of the twenty-second instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, the Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the deposit by such State of its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. Article 28 - Denunciation

A State Party may denounce this Convention by written notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Denunciation shall take effect one year following the date on which notification is received by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Article 29 - Authentic texts The original of this Convention, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall send certified copies thereof to all States.

[educationday]

Prohibit any form of exclusion or limitation of educational opportunities.

The 1960 UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education, as well as other international human rights treaties, prohibit any form of exclusion or limitation of educational opportunities on the basis of perceived or social differences (such as sex, gender, ethnic and social origin, language, religion, nationality, economic status, and ability). 

[news4dzhozhar]

[mirrorofliterature]

when people complain about the un and international law being useless... look

I don't think (many) people fundamentally understand what the UN is, what international law is, and what they can and cannot do

the UN and international law in general are... quite imperfect and bureaucratic systems which are heavily politicised but it's like. a better world to be in where they do exist than one where there is not. I like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights! I love the self-determination article in the subsequent human rights treaties and how decolonising countries in the 1940s-1970s played a crucial role in shaping the current system.

international law gives us benchmarks, lines in the sand to point out and articulate why someone something did was illegal without running into the issue of ex post facto law, which was an issue in the nuremberg trials, but I digress.

the UN is not a governing body. it has no independent political power.

international law, at the end of the day, is based on the consent of states. whether you like it or not, international law is a horizontal system.

most people are much more familiar with domestic law which is vertical and has clear enforcement mechanisms. international law, particularly international human rights law, has fucking shit enforcement mechanisms. it's all consent based, it's heavily politicised and it's woefully underfunded. sanctions are terrible. humanitarian interventions often go terribly wrong.

but they give structure, and guidelines, and things for civil society to point at and say: you have fucked up. you have breached xyz treaty article, as seen in abc treaty body decision or general comment.

I guess I'm real tired of people acting like international law and the UN are useless or a net negative. like. there are a lot of issues. but it's more complex than 'good' versus 'bad'.

the power imbalance between countries and the veto power of the security un council in particular are stupid but products of historical reality and compromise. international law is built on compromise.

anyway keep on holding the west accountable for the treaties they helped create and signed. unfortunately the united states is weak and has not ratified as many treaties as it should have but what state has ratified which treaty is publicly available information and so are the treaties.

[indigenouspeopleday]

7th Meeting, 17th Session Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP).

The 17th session of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples - EMRIP provides the Human Rights Council with expertise and advice on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. It assists Member States in achieving the goals of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

10h00 – 11h00:

Item 3 (continued): Study and advice on Constitutions, laws, legislation, policies, judicial decisions, and other mechanisms through which States have taken measures to achieve the ends of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, in accordance with Article 38 of the Declaration.11h00 – 13h00: Item 7: International Decade of Indigenous Languages.

Watch the 7th Meeting, 17th Session Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP)!

[plitnick]

The U.S. double standard on nuclear power is dangerous

Although Joe Biden’s pathetic and desperate effort at Israeli-Saudi normalization is almost certain to fail, the fact that he’s willing to even consider helping Saudi Arabia develop its own, independent nuclear enrichment program (something it is legally entitled to, but the US is by no means required to help with) reveals much about nuclear double standards and hubris in the region as well as…

[reasonsforhope]

Masterpost: Reasons I firmly believe we will beat climate change

Posts are in reverse chronological order (by post date, not article date), mostly taken from my "climate change" tag, which I went through all the way back to the literal beginning of my blog. Will update periodically.

Especially big deal articles/posts are in bold.

Big picture:

Mature trees offer hope in world of rising emissions (x)

Spying from space: How satellites can help identify and rein in a potent climate pollutant (x)

Good news: Tiny urban green spaces can cool cities and save lives (x)

Conservation and economic development go hand in hand, more often than expected (x)

The exponential growth of solar power will change the world (x)

Sun Machines: Solar, an energy that gets cheaper and cheaper, is going to be huge (x)

Wealthy nations finally deliver promised climate aid, as calls for more equitable funding for poor countries grow (x)

For Earth Day 2024, experts are spreading optimism – not doom. Here's why. (x)

Opinion: I’m a Climate Scientist. I’m Not Screaming Into the Void Anymore. (x)

The World’s Forests Are Doing Much Better Than We Think (x)

‘Staggering’ green growth gives hope for 1.5C, says global energy chief (x)

Beyond Catastrophe: A New Climate Reality Is Coming Into View (x)

Young Forests Capture Carbon Quicker than Previously Thought (x)

Yes, climate change can be beaten by 2050. Here's how. (x)

Soil improvements could keep planet within 1.5C heating target, research shows (x)

The global treaty to save the ozone layer has also slowed Arctic ice melt (x)

The doomers are wrong about humanity’s future — and its past (x)

Scientists Find Methane is Actually Offsetting 30% of its Own Heating Effect on Planet (x)

Are debt-for-climate swaps finally taking off? (x)

High seas treaty: historic deal to protect international waters finally reached at UN (x)

How Could Positive ‘Tipping Points’ Accelerate Climate Action? (x)

Specific examples:

Environmental Campaigners Celebrate As Labour Ends Tory Ban On New Onshore Wind Projects (x)

Private firms are driving a revolution in solar power in Africa (x)

How the small Pacific island nation of Vanuatu drastically cut plastic pollution (x)

Rewilding sites have seen 400% increase in jobs since 2008, research finds [Scotland] (x)

The American Climate Corps take flight, with most jobs based in the West (x)

Waste Heat Generated from Electronics to Warm Finnish City in Winter Thanks to Groundbreaking Thermal Energy Project (x)

Climate protection is now a human right — and lawsuits will follow [European Union] (x)

A new EU ecocide law ‘marks the end of impunity for environmental criminals’ (x)

Solar hits a renewable energy milestone not seen since WWII [United States] (x)

These are the climate grannies. They’ll do whatever it takes to protect their grandchildren. [United States and Native American Nations] (x)

Century of Tree Planting Stalls the Warming Effects in the Eastern United States, Says Study (x)

Chart: Wind and solar are closing in on fossil fuels in the EU (x)

UK use of gas and coal for electricity at lowest since 1957, figures show (x)

Countries That Generate 100% Renewable Energy Electricity (x)

Indigenous advocacy leads to largest dam removal project in US history [United States and Native American Nations] (x)

India’s clean energy transition is rapidly underway, benefiting the entire world (x)

China is set to shatter its wind and solar target five years early, new report finds (x)

‘Game changing’: spate of US lawsuits calls big oil to account for climate crisis (x)

Largest-ever data set collection shows how coral reefs can survive climate change (x)

The Biggest Climate Bill of Your Life - But What Does It DO? [United States] (x)

Good Climate News: Headline Roundup April 1st through April 15th, 2023 (x)

How agroforestry can restore degraded lands and provide income in the Amazon (x) [Brazil]

Loss of Climate-Crucial Mangrove Forests Has Slowed to Near-Negligable Amount Worldwide, Report Hails (x)

Agroecology schools help communities restore degraded land in Guatemala (x)

Climate adaptation:

Solar-powered generators pull clean drinking water 'from thin air,' aiding communities in need: 'It transforms lives' (x)

‘Sponge’ Cities Combat Urban Flooding by Letting Nature Do the Work [China] (x)

Indian Engineers Tackle Water Shortages with Star Wars Tech in Kerala (x)

A green roof or rooftop solar? You can combine them in a biosolar roof — boosting both biodiversity and power output (x)

Global death tolls from natural disasters have actually plummeted over the last century (x)

Los Angeles Just Proved How Spongy a City Can Be (x)

This city turns sewage into drinking water in 24 hours. The concept is catching on [Namibia] (x)

Plants teach their offspring how to adapt to climate change, scientists find (x)

Resurrecting Climate-Resilient Rice in India (x)

Other Masterposts:

Going carbon negative and how we're going to fix global heating (x)

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Holy CRAP the UN Cybercrime Treaty is a nightmare

Support me this summer on the Clarion Write-A-Thon and help raise money for the Clarion Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers' Workshop!

If there's one thing I learned from all my years as an NGO delegate to UN specialized agencies, it's that UN treaties are dangerous, liable to capture by unholy alliances of authoritarian states and rapacious global capitalists.

Most of my UN work was on copyright and "paracopyright," and my track record was 2:0; I helped kill a terrible treaty (the WIPO Broadcast Treaty) and helped pass a great one (the Marrakesh Treaty on the rights of people with disabilities to access copyrighted works):

https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/marrakesh/

It's been many years since I had to shave and stuff myself into a suit and tie and go to Geneva, and I don't miss it – and thankfully, I have colleagues who do that work, better than I ever did. Yesterday, I heard from one such EFF colleague, Katitza Rodriguez, about the Cybercrime Treaty, which is about to pass, and which is, to put it mildly, terrifying:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/07/un-cybercrime-draft-convention-dangerously-expands-state-surveillance-powers

Look, cybercrime is a real thing, from pig butchering to ransomware, and there's real, global harms that can be attributed to it. Cybercrime is transnational, making it hard for cops in any one jurisdiction to handle it. So there's a reason to think about formal international standards for fighting cybercrime.

But that's not what's in the Cybercrime Treaty.

Here's a quick sketch of the significant defects in the Cybercrime Treaty.

The treaty has an extremely loose definition of cybercrime, and that looseness is deliberate. In authoritarian states like China and Russia (whose delegations are the driving force behind this treaty), "cybercrime" has come to mean "anything the government disfavors, if you do it with a computer." "Cybercrime" can mean online criticism of the government, or professions of religious belief, or material supporting LGBTQ rights.

Nations that sign up to the Cybercrime Treaty will be obliged to help other nations fight "cybercrime" – however those nations define it. They'll be required to provide surveillance data – for example, by forcing online services within their borders to cough up their users' private data, or even to pressure employees to install back-doors in their systems for ongoing monitoring.

These obligations to aid in surveillance are mandatory, but much of the Cybercrime Treaty is optional. What's optional? The human rights safeguards. Member states "should" or "may" create standards for legality, necessity, proportionality, non-discrimination, and legitimate purpose. But even if they do, the treaty can oblige them to assist in surveillance orders that originate with other states that decided not to create these standards.

When that happens, the citizens of the affected states may never find out about it. There are eight articles in the treaty that establish obligations for indefinite secrecy regarding surveillance undertaken on behalf of other signatories. That means that your government may be asked to spy on you and the people you love, they may order employees of tech companies to backdoor your account and devices, and that fact will remain secret forever. Forget challenging these sneak-and-peek orders in court – you won't even know about them:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/06/un-cybercrime-draft-convention-blank-check-unchecked-surveillance-abuses

Now here's the kicker: while this treaty creates broad powers to fight things governments dislike, simply by branding them "cybercrime," it actually undermines the fight against cybercrime itself. Most cybercrime involves exploiting security defects in devices and services – think of ransomware attacks – and the Cybercrime Treaty endangers the security researchers who point out these defects, creating grave criminal liability for the people we rely on to warn us when the tech vendors we rely upon have put us at risk.

This is the granddaddy of tech free speech fights. Since the paper tape days, researchers who discovered defects in critical systems have been intimidated, threatened, sued and even imprisoned for blowing the whistle. Tech giants insist that they should have a veto over who can publish true facts about the defects in their products, and dress up this demand as concern over security. "If you tell bad guys about the mistakes we made, they will exploit those bugs and harm our users. You should tell us about those bugs, sure, but only we can decide when it's the right time for our users and customers to find out about them."

When it comes to warnings about the defects in their own products, corporations have an irreconcilable conflict of interest. Time and again, we've seen corporations rationalize their way into suppressing or ignoring bug reports. Sometimes, they simply delay the warning until they've concluded a merger or secured a board vote on executive compensation.

Sometimes, they decide that a bug is really a feature – like when Facebook decided not to do anything about the fact that anyone could enumerate the full membership of any Facebook group (including, for example, members of a support group for people with cancer). This group enumeration bug was actually a part of the company's advertising targeting system, so they decided to let it stand, rather than re-engineer their surveillance advertising business.

The idea that users are safer when bugs are kept secret is called "security through obscurity" and no one believes in it – except corporate executives. As Bruce Schneier says, "Anyone can design a system that is so secure that they themselves can't break it. That doesn't mean it's secure – it just means that it's secure against people stupider than the system's designer":

The history of massive, brutal cybersecurity breaches is an unbroken string of heartbreakingly naive confidence in security through obscurity:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/05/battery-vampire/#drained

But despite this, the idea that some bugs should be kept secret and allowed to fester has powerful champions: a public-private partnership of corporate execs, government spy agencies and cyber-arms dealers. Agencies like the NSA and CIA have huge teams toiling away to discover defects in widely used products. These defects put the populations of their home countries in grave danger, but rather than reporting them, the spy agencies hoard these defects.

The spy agencies have an official doctrine defending this reckless practice: they call it "NOBUS," which stands for "No One But Us." As in: "No one but us is smart enough to find these bugs, so we can keep them secret and use them attack our adversaries, without worrying about those adversaries using them to attack the people we are sworn to protect."

NOBUS is empirically wrong. In the 2010s, we saw a string of leaked NSA and CIA cyberweapons. One of these, "Eternalblue" was incorporated into off-the-shelf ransomware, leading to the ransomware epidemic that rages even today. You can thank the NSA's decision to hoard – rather than disclose and patch – the Eternalblue exploit for the ransoming of cities like Baltimore, hospitals up and down the country, and an oil pipeline:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EternalBlue

The leak of these cyberweapons didn't just provide raw material for the world's cybercriminals, it also provided data for researchers. A study of CIA and NSA NOBUS defects found that there was a one-in-five chance of a bug that had been hoarded by a spy agency being independently discovered by a criminal, weaponized, and released into the wild.

Not every government has the wherewithal to staff its own defect-mining operation, but that's where the private sector steps in. Cyber-arms dealers like the NSO Group find or buy security defects in widely used products and services and turn them into products – military-grade cyberweapons that are used to attack human rights groups, opposition figures, and journalists:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/10/24/breaking-the-news/#kingdom

A good Cybercrime Treaty would recognize the perverse incentives that create the coalition to keep us from knowing which products we can trust and which ones we should avoid. It would shut down companies like the NSO Group, ban spy agencies from hoarding defects, and establish an absolute defense for security researchers who reveal true facts about defects.

Instead, the Cybercrime Treaty creates new obligations on signatories to help other countries' cops and courts silence and punish security researchers who make these true disclosures, ensuring that spies and criminals will know which products aren't safe to use, but we won't (until it's too late):

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/06/if-not-amended-states-must-reject-flawed-draft-un-cybercrime-convention

A Cybercrime Treaty is a good idea, and even this Cybercrime Treaty could be salvaged. The member-states have it in their power to accept proposed revisions that would protect human rights and security researchers, narrow the definition of "cybercrime," and mandate transparency. They could establish member states' powers to refuse illegitimate requests from other countries:

https://www.eff.org/press/releases/media-briefing-eff-partners-warn-un-member-states-are-poised-approve-dangerou

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/07/23/expanded-spying-powers/#in-russia-crime-cybers-you

Image: EFF https://www.eff.org/files/banner_library/cybercrime-2024-2b.jpg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/

[reportwire]

UN committee takes step to treaty on crimes against humanity

UN committee takes step to treaty on crimes against humanity

UNITED NATIONS — A key U.N. committee took a first step Friday toward negotiating a treaty on crimes against humanity, which can be committed at any time, not just during conflicts. The committee that deals with legal issues approved a resolution by consensus that would authorize its members to hold sessions in April 2023 and April 2024 to exchange views on draft articles for a treaty submitted…

[read-marx-and-lenin]

I’m following the DPRK debates (or trying to at least) but ultimately I’m struggling to understand how to glorify a nation that impedes so heavily on its citizen’s human rights, any insight?

Two things:

First, you shouldn't be trying to glorify anything. You should be trying to understand things and separating truth from fiction.

Second, in that vein, you should be seriously questioning what is being said about the DPRK and why. The US and its allies have a vested interest in ensuring that any socialist project fails, and when they are unable to cause a real failure, they work to make the public believe that it has failed anyway.

The two main sources of the most egregious human rights violations are defector testimony and US/ROK intelligence. If you've been following what I've posted about the DPRK on this blog then you should already know the problems with defector testimony (you can watch this short documentary if you want to know more about that and hear from a few former DPRK residents who rebut many typical defector narratives,) but suffice it to say that the ROK actively pays defectors to make false and scripted statements in the South Korean media, and those who do not go along with the ROK government narrative or who actively contradict it are censored and even face prison time.

Meanwhile, Western intelligence is inherently unverifiable. The best you're going to get is a satellite photo with a building labeled "torture facility" as if we're supposed to look at a roof and be like "uh-huh, that looks like a torture facility to me". US and ROK intelligence officials can and do say whatever they like, but at the end of the day they are the direct enemies of the DPRK and their claims cannot be trusted.

The two Korean governments are still at war; they have never signed a peace treaty. Their conduct must be viewed first and foremost in this context. Both the ROK and the DPRK block movement of people across the DMZ. Both the ROK and the DPRK prevent the dissemination of information coming from each other's nations. Both the ROK and the DPRK surveil their citizens and place controls on the media. Both the ROK and the DPRK place limits on political and cultural activity. The ROK acts to suppress anti-capitalist movements and protect the capitalist way of life, and the DPRK acts to suppress anti-socialist movements and protect the socialist way of life, as both sides view their own political and economic systems as vital to the protection of human rights. On any of these grounds, you cannot fault one side without faulting the other, which is why Western media often opts instead to focus on the more exaggerated and unverifiable claims except when explicitly advocating in favor of capitalism over socialism.

Finally, there is the issue of contradictory ideas of human rights. The capitalist West will insist time and time again that the right to private property is a basic human right, while avoiding or even denying the idea of a right to food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, etc. as a basic human right. To the West, a landlord's right to evict a tenant is inviolable. To the West, denying a person shelter is more of a human right than granting them shelter. The opposite is true in socialist nations such as the DPRK. That the DPRK holds different values as human rights does not then mean that the DPRK is some terrible oppressive violator of human rights. The right to be a capitalist should not be considered a human right. The right to be a saboteur should not be considered a human right.

The DPRK Association for Human Rights Studies, a non-governmental organization in Pyongyang, published a report in 2014 on human rights from the perspective of the DPRK, outlining their objections to US-led international human rights standards and the progress being made in the DPRK towards guaranteeing human rights. You can call it propaganda if you like, but if you do not even look at the statements coming out of the DPRK, how can you have a rounded view of the situation?

Had the DPRK not succeeded in withstanding the attacks against it, had it managed to become subjugated by the US and other imperialist forces, I do not think we could then say that human rights in North Korea would have been secured and safeguarded. The poverty and inequality that the proletariat of South Korea are afflicted with today would have become the norm across the whole peninsula. Even if you believe that human rights are violated today in the DPRK, you must at least admit that the victory of the US and its puppet government in the South cannot be a means of combating any alleged human rights violations in the North.

[detainedstaffday]

Pledging to protect and support humanitarians as they help build a more peaceful, humane world for us all.

Today is a solemn reminder of the grave risks facing our staff members as they carry out their vital work under the United Nations flag.

These brave women and men represent humanity’s highest calling: helping people in their hour of desperate need. They come from countries spanning the globe, but are united in their common dedication to the noble causes of peacekeeping, delivering aid and assistance, and upholding international law and human rights in countries and regions rocked by conflict and disaster.

They also face enormous and unacceptable risks — including violence, detention and abduction. Since 2022, 381 UN personnel have been detained — including 7 in January and February of this year. In total, 27 UN personnel are still in detention.

Our hearts are with their families and colleagues, and I will not relent in calling for their release and safe return.

In their name, we urge all countries to fully implement the 1994 Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, and the 2005 Optional Protocol to the Convention.

On this important day, let’s honor the courage and dedication of humanitarians everywhere by pledging to protect and support them as they help build a more peaceful, humane world for us all.

António Guterres.

Statement from the UN Secretary-General António Guterres on the International Day of Solidarity with Detained and Missing Staff Members 2024; March 25th.

[arakkne]

Gender apartheid: oppression of women should be made a crime against humanity – feminist academic explains why

Published July 15th, 2014, written by Penelope Andrews

"Crimes against humanity are occurring with impunity around the globe; from Myanmar to Sudan, Ukraine and elsewhere. And yet, unlike international treaties for the crimes of genocide, torture, apartheid and forced disappearances, there isn’t a treaty specific to crimes against humanity.

That lack is now being remedied.

The International Law Commission, a UN expert body, has submitted draft articles for a treaty to the UN’s Sixth Committee. This is the main forum for considering legal questions in the UN General Assembly. The intention is to give countries more legal tools to hold accountable those who commit crimes against humanity. It is expected that the treaty process will conclude in October 2024.

The new treaty may include special protection for women.

We believe good journalism is good for democracy and necessary for it.

A group of women activists is lobbying the committee to consider including in the treaty a new definition aimed at protecting women against all forms of oppression. They are advocating for a definition of this discrimination as “gender apartheid”. The idea is that it would track the definition of racial apartheid by replacing the word “race” with “gender”.

Apartheid (Afrikaans for “apartness”) policies were codified in South Africa between 1948 and 1954. The ideology divided South Africans on the basis of race in all spheres of life.

The lobbyists argue that the international community responded comprehensively to racial apartheid after the Apartheid Convention made it a crime in 1973. This forced the South African apartheid state to be held accountable for the crime. It also imposed an obligation on UN member states to eradicate the institutionalised systematic oppression and domination of black South Africans.

Read more: Ordinary white South Africans and apartheid – bound to a racist system they helped prop up

As an academic who has researched and written extensively on racial and gender equality, I fully support broadening the definition of the crime of apartheid to include gender. I believe this is necessary given the persistence and ubiquity of structural discrimination and violence against women in the world.

I first made a case for this in my 2012 book From Cape Town to Kabul: Rethinking Strategies for Pursuing Women’s Human Rights. I argued that when one reads the Apartheid Convention closely, and substitutes “gender” for “race”, the situation of Afghan women, in particular, is identical to the plight of black South Africans under apartheid.

I argued that thinking about constructing a genuine alternative to the realities of women’s lives in Afghanistan was to consider the way the international community confronted the eradication of apartheid in South Africa. It would enable a structured global approach responsive to the institutionalised systems of domination and oppression of women, girls and the LGBTQI+ community.

Codifying “gender apartheid” could go much further than protecting Afghan women and girls.

Great progress has been made in the pursuit of gender equality and in stemming gender-based violence. I believe that codifying gender apartheid under international law is an essential component of that continued progress.

It could offer significant relief to many victims and survivors who otherwise would not be entitled to adequate recourse from the international community and from states. It could also lead to a more effective and concerted international response to gender-based oppression.

Fighting gender apartheid

The crime of gender apartheid stands out as unique and pernicious in intent and consequence. It is what legal scholar Patricia Williams has referred to as “spirit murder”. That is a system of dehumanisation, erasure, oppression, domination and persecution.

Read more: Students on the frontline: South Africa and the US share a history of protest against white supremacy

The Taliban’s ever deepening and institutionalised oppression of Afghan women and girls is the most vivid illustration of the case.

Multiple UN experts, member states and Afghan women’s rights defenders have warned of the deteriorating situation of women and girls in Afghanistan. The concerns became more pronounced after the UN Deputy Secretary-General Amina J. Mohammed on 12 January 2023 warned the international community that in Afghanistan,

unprecedented, systemic attacks on women’s and girls’ rights and the flouting of international obligations are creating gender-based apartheid.

A sign in Johannesburg in 1948 saying 'non-European' people are not allowed to use a lift reserved for Europeans (whites).

Apartheid signage in Johannesburg in March 1948. AFP via Getty Images

In September 2023, UN Women executive director Sima Bahous called on member states to support an intergovernmental process to codify gender apartheid under international law. She said that

the tools the international community has at its disposal were not created to respond to mass, state-sponsored gender oppression. This systematic and planned assault on women’s rights is foundational to the Taliban’s vision of state and society and it must be named, defined, and proscribed in our global norms, so that we can respond appropriately.

Why the argument holds water

One question that needs answering is whether apartheid can be separated from its association with South Africa. Can we think of apartheid as a crime against humanity that can be removed from its racial context?

The evidence from Afghanistan, for example, suggests the answer is a resounding “yes”.

There is a precedent for this. The crime of genocide originated as a term to describe the crimes in Nazi-occupied Europe in the second world war. It was then applied to genocides that occurred elsewhere in the world, like Rwanda, Cambodia and Sudan. In the same way apartheid ought not to be confined to its racial origins.

Read more: South Africa’s genocide case against Israel is the country's proudest foreign policy moment in three decades

International opponents of racial apartheid played a significant role in bolstering South African anti-apartheid activists. In the same way the backing of the global community is crucial to advancing gender justice and women’s human rights. It is particularly necessary to support frontline defenders of women’s human rights who challenge gender apartheid at great risk to themselves.

As the government of Malta noted in its 2023 written comments on the Draft Crimes Against Humanity Convention:

[t]he codification of the crime of gender apartheid will enable victims and survivors – present and future – to hold perpetrators to account for the totality of crimes committed by systematized oppression which the crime of gender persecution alone cannot and does not capture.

This view ought to be widely endorsed by the international community."

[zvaigzdelasas]

The Onondaga claim that the United States violated a 1794 treaty, signed by George Washington, that guaranteed 2.5 million acres in central New York to them. The case, filed in 2014, is the second brought by an American Indian nation against the United States in an international human rights body; a finding is expected as soon as this year.

Even if the Onondaga are successful, the result will mostly be symbolic. The entity, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, has no power to enforce a finding or settlement, and the United States has said that it does not consider the commission’s recommendations to be binding.

“We could win against them, but that doesn’t mean that they have to abide by whatever,” Mr. Hill said in an interview.

The 2.5 million acres have long since been transformed by highways and utility lines, shopping malls, universities, airports and roller rinks.

The territory encompasses the cities of Binghamton and Syracuse, as well as more than 30 state forests, dozens of lakes and countless streams and tributaries. It is also home to 24 Superfund sites, the environmental detritus of the powerhouse economy that helped central New York thrive during the beginning and middle half of the 20th century.

Most notorious of these is Lake Onondaga, which once held the dubious title of America’s most polluted lake.

Industrial waste has left its mark on Onondaga territory, leaving the nation unable to fish from its streams and rivers. The history of environmental degradation is part of what motivates the Onondaga, who consider it their sacred responsibility to protect their land.

One of their chief objectives in filing the petition is a seat at the table on environmental decisions across the original territory. The other is an acknowledgment that New York, even if only in principle, owes them 2.5 million acres.[...]

Some Native nations have been willing to drop land claims in exchange for licenses to operate casinos. But the Onondaga say they are not interested in cash. Nor are they interested in licenses to sell cannabis or operate a casino — which they consider socially irresponsible and a threat to their tribal sovereignty.

There’s really just one thing that Mr. Hill says would be an acceptable form of payment: land.

The Onondaga insist they are not looking to displace anyone. Instead they hope the state might turn over a tract of unspoiled land for the nation to hunt, fish, preserve or develop as it sees fit. One such repatriation effort is underway: the return of 1,000 acres as a part of a federal settlement with Honeywell International for the contamination of Onondaga Lake. The United States has not contested the Onondaga's account of how the nation lost its land. Indeed, the lawyers representing the United States in the Onondaga case have centered their argument on legal precedence, noting that courts at every level — including the U.S. Supreme Court — rejected the Onondaga’s claims as too old and most remedies too disruptive to the region’s current inhabitants.

To the Onondaga, the logic required to square these contentions seems unfair. Why should the United States be allowed to steal their land and face no obligation to give some back?[...]

In New York, [...] Native people were not considered to have standing to sue on their own behalf until 1987.[...]

In 2005, the Onondaga filed a version of their current claim in Federal District Court in the Northern District of New York, naming as defendants the State of New York, its governor, Onondaga County, the City of Syracuse and a handful of the companies responsible for the environmental degradation over the past centuries. A similar case filed by the Oneida Nation was, at the time, pending before the Supreme Court.

But just 18 days after the Onondaga filed their petition, the Supreme Court rejected the Oneidas’ case. The decision referenced an colonial-era legal theory known as the Doctrine of Discovery, which holds in part that Indigenous property claims were nullified by the “discovery” of that land by Christians.

The “long lapse of time” and “the attendant dramatic changes in the character” precluded the Oneida nation from the “disruptive remedy” it sought, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in the majority decision.[...]

[L]awyers for the Onondaga used the rejection as the premise for a new argument. They contended that the U.S. court system’s refusal to find in their favor proved that they could not find justice in the United States.

The petition filed before the international commission amounts to the most direct challenge of the United States’ treatment of Indigenous people to date in terms of human rights — and the first to apply the lens of colonialism.

“What the Onondaga litigation is doing right now is to force a political dialogue with the colonial occupier,” said Andrew Reid, a lawyer representing the Onondaga, adding that a favorable finding could prompt a political conversation about the United States’s treatment of native people on the world stage.

Representatives for the State Department declined to be interviewed and did not respond to requests for comment. But in legal documents, the United States contended that the Onondaga’s central claims have been rejected in prior cases; that they have had “abundant opportunity” for their case to be heard; and that they are merely unhappy with the outcome. It also contended that the commission has no jurisdiction, given that the bulk of the nation’s losses took place two centuries before it was established.

“The judicial process functioned as it should have in this matter,” the United States wrote in legal papers.

15 Mar 24

[writers-potion]

I'm writing a sci-fi story about a space freight hauler with a heavy focus on the economy. Any tips for writing a complex fictional economy and all of it's intricacies and inner-workings?

Constructing a Fictional Economy

The economy is all about: How is the limited financial/natural/human resources distributed between various parties?

So, the most important question you should be able to answer are:

Who are the "have"s and "have-not"s?

What's "expensive" and what's "commonplace"?

What are the rules(laws, taxes, trade) of this game?

Building Blocks of the Economic System

Type of economic system. Even if your fictional economy is made up, it will need to be based on the existing systems: capitalism, socialism, mixed economies, feudalism, barter, etc.

Currency and monetary systems: the currency can be in various forms like gols, silver, digital, fiat, other commodity, etc. Estalish a central bank (or equivalent) responsible for monetary policy

Exchange rates

Inflation

Domestic and International trade: Trade policies and treaties. Transportation, communication infrastructure

Labour and employment: labor force trends, employment opportunities, workers rights. Consider the role of education, training and skill development in the labour market

The government's role: Fiscal policy(tax rate?), market regulation, social welfare, pension plans, etc.

Impact of Technology: Examine the role of tech in productivity, automation and job displacement. How does the digital economy and e-commerce shape the world?

Economic history: what are some historical events (like The Great Depresion and the 2008 Housing Crisis) that left lasting impacts on the psychologial workings of your economy?

For a comprehensive economic system, you'll need to consider ideally all of the above. However, depending on the characteristics of your country, you will need to concentrate on some more than others. i.e. a country heavily dependent on exports will care a lot more about the exchange rate and how to keep it stable.

For Fantasy Economies:

Social status: The haves and have-nots in fantasy world will be much more clear-cut, often with little room for movement up and down the socioeconoic ladder.

Scaricity. What is a resource that is hard to come by?

Geographical Characteristics: The setting will play a huge role in deciding what your country has and doesn't. Mountains and seas will determine time and cost of trade. Climatic conditions will determine shelf life of food items.

Impact of Magic: Magic can determine the cost of obtaining certain commodities. How does teleportation magic impact trade?

For Sci-Fi Economies Related to Space Exploration

Thankfully, space exploitation is slowly becoming a reality, we can now identify the factors we'll need to consider:

Economics of space waste: How large is the space waste problem? Is it recycled or resold? Any regulations about disposing of space wste?

New Energy: Is there any new clean energy? Is energy scarce?

Investors: Who/which country are the giants of space travel?

Ownership: Who "owns" space? How do you draw the borders between territories in space?

New class of workers: How are people working in space treated? Skilled or unskilled?

Relationship between space and Earth: Are resources mined in space and brought back to Earth, or is there a plan to live in space permanently?

What are some new professional niches?

What's the military implication of space exploitation? What new weapons, networks and spying techniques?

Also, consider:

Impact of space travel on food security, gender equality, racial equality

Impact of space travel on education.

Impact of space travel on the entertainment industry. Perhaps shooting monters in space isn't just a virtual thing anymore?

What are some indsutries that decline due to space travel?

I suggest reading up the Economic Impact Report from NASA, and futuristic reports from business consultants like McKinsey.

If space exploitation is a relatiely new technology that not everyone has access to, the workings of the economy will be skewed to benefit large investors and tech giants. As more regulations appear and prices go down, it will be further be integrated into the various industries, eventually becoming a new style of living.

[hemipenal-system]

aww, what’s the matter? why are you crying?

you’re scared? what of, morsel?

me? why are you scared of me? you asked me to hold you in my mouth until we got somewhere warmer, and my mouth is plenty warm…

don’t worry about me, morsel… i’m your friend, i would never eat you… at least not permanently.

hey, hey, no, don’t worry! i said i wouldn't hurt you and i meant it!

come out? i'm sorry, morsel, i can't let you out yet! it's so cold out here you'd practically freeze to death if i let you out! besides, all that saliva you're soaked with now... it'd just make you colder. i think it's best if i just hold on to you for now.

besides, i think you're enjoying this more than you want to admit to me.

oh, come on. you think i can't feel how you squirm when i curl my tongue along your back? how you grab onto my teeth desperately when i curl it over you and scrape the rough side against your bare legs?

you know, my tongue was designed with a purpose. every part of a creature as beautiful as me is. those hard keratin spikes you enjoy so much? they’re meant to grind against bigger creatures than you, shearing flesh from bone and slathering what’s left in enzyme-loaded saliva that begins to melt you down to bone shadows even before you’re swallowed…

oh, no, not for you. you’re very small, small enough i could swallow you whole. you’d like it more that way, wouldn’t you? alive and conscious for the whole thing?

yes, morsel, i know why you were so eager to climb into my mouth- and i know it’s not fear of heights like you claimed. we may be a mile above the ground with only my wings and internal fire to sustain us, but my blood runs through me everywhere and my claws would have been more than warm enough to keep you safe from the biting cold at this altitude.

don’t worry, this is what you’re supposed to want. you’re from a prey species. sure, we have peace treaties now and you have enough weapons to fend us off now, but for millennia that’s how it went! you ran, you got pinned down, you struggled, and then we tore you limb from limb, reveling in the blood and adrenaline of a meal well hunted…

you don’t have to be embarrassed, morsel! you’re allowed to want me to devour you! i know you find me attractive – in the same way a mouse finds a cat attractive, of course. you’ve always had an affinity for dragons. i’ve seen how you look at the other riders who’re more… open about what they do with their mounts. you can tell me those things, you know.

i told you, i’m not going to let you out! it’s not safe for you at this height or temperature!

yes, obviously i've thought about doing this to you. never seriously, but... enough. humans make wonderful prey... your gentle struggling because you're intelligent enough to trust us and know we won't really hurt you even if we draw a bit of blood... it's very different than tearing the horns off a deer and swallowing it whole, you know.

i've eaten your kind before, you know. i wasn't always so... docile. your nomad convoys made such wonderful buffets: chicken, beef, pork, human – and you always had such wonderful fruits and spices in those little covered wagons of yours! i enjoyed cracking them open like nuts, devouring everything inside.

no, you're not nutritious at all. your meat is really stringy. the terrified shaking and pleading is tantalizing, though...

what do you mean, "what are you doing?" all this talk about food is making me hungry. i'm just savoring your taste is all. you're like one of those hard candies you humans buy from the market to suck on, except warm and salty and savory and-

i could swallow you. it'd be so easy.

no, no, not digest you. stop writhing like that – or continue if you want. it feels nice. i'd just swallow you and hold you in my first stomach for a while. think of it as a warm, damp, dark hug from me. no pain, no flesh itching and melting off, just a gentle squeeze.

hold still, morsel. i need to reposition you a bit is all. that's right, legs like that, arms go that way - yes, exactly! now don't move.

yes, i know it's a bit tight. my prey is a bit more chewed, usually. stop complaining about it or i'll pull you back up and bite you into small pieces so you'll fit better. is that what you want?

there. is that comfortable? i can adjust a bit if you want. hey, no, stop squirming. you're not going to die. that is not stomach acid. if you don't stop panicking i'm going to have to squeeze to hold you still.

i told you. i'm very much stronger than you. stop trying to push out. you're going to sit in there whether you like it or not, morsel.

stop calling you that? why should i? you're literally in my stomach. are you not food, at least for the moment?

don't even tempt me. i am hungry.

just go to sleep or something. we're going to be in the air for a while. if you stop wiggling around in there i'll let you out when i land. i know how soothing it is to be in there. i was a hatchling once too, you know.

i can literally feel you relaxing as my crop massages you. you're yawning. don't even lie to me.

good night, morsel...

[effervescentdragon]

I want to talk about the ICJ ruling of July 19th on Palestine and Israel.

I've been mulling this over in my head for days now and I finally have the time to sit down, do research and write it all down. I don't think a lot of people understand what it actually means. Most of the reactions I've seen focus on the wrong thing, which is how it affects the USA, instead of the more, maybe the most important one, which is how it affects Europe and the EU. I will explain what I mean, hopefully comprehensively, ahead.

First of all, the online and offline worlds both are incredibly, annoyingly saturated with USAmerican perspective. We all fall prey to the trap of looking at things through the USAmerican perspective, which is both understandable and wrong. No matter how much it tries to present itself so, USA is not the only country in the world, and although its existence is sadly important through the virtue of "it does not allow itself to be ignored no matter how much we all wish we could", in this case, the US is irrelevant. It is irrellevant because the ICJ decision was not made to put pressure on the US. That is not possible, as the US is notorious for not obeying, respecting, or indeed even acknowledging any of the International Law, or IL treaties. In this post of mine I have compiled only some of the international law agreemebts and treaties that the US has either not signed, or signed and not ratified, which makes it so they're not bound to abide by them. I only want to emphasise one - the American Declaration of Human Rights. It predates even the UDHR, and the USA has never ratified it, which means it does not have to obey it. If the USAmericans have not yet realised that their human rights are non-existent, just look at your data privacy laws, or lack thereof (this post starts in nicely on it). What I am trying to say with all of this is that nobody actually expected the US to obey the ICJ decision. For all of USAmerican boasting about being democratic and the paragon of justice, if you go through actual transcripts and notes from UN General Assembly sessions and International Bodies' rulings and debates, you will more often than not see the US as an (consciencious) objector to many motions that aim(ed) to make life better for humans on Earth, be these climate change policies or human rights policies or war policies. USA serves only its own imperial, megalomaniacal interests and its blatant disrespect and disregard of International Law only brings this fact into light. This ruling was never about the USA and with this, I will stop talking about it because the USA is irrelevant for what I actually want to say. (Also I'm sick of it. Of having to write a full paragraph about the US even when it's not about the US.)

Let us get to the actual point.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is a body of the UN that is responsible for adjudicating international disputes and giving advisory opinion on international legal issues. I will not recount the history of establishing the UN and these bodies of International Law and Practice, but suffice to say it replaced the Permanent Court of Justice after WW2, much like the UN replaced the League of Nations. It is also the only body of the UN not located in New York, instead it is located in The Hague in the Netherlands. The most important thing is that all states members of the UN are party to the ICJ statute, established by the UN Charter. In the matter of rulings, ICJ, much like the rest of the international law instruments, has jurisdiction on the basis of consent, be it explicit or tacit, which means that the States which bring their cases to the ICJ therfore agree that the ICJ has jurisdiction, and accept to be subjected to the ICJ's ruling. In the matter of giving advisory opinion (that can be requested either by the General Assembly or the Security Council, or if it's abother organ, by GA's authorisation), these opinions are consultative and non-binding in character. However, they carry a great weight and authority, and are also not without legal basis. The ICJ's views on the issues of international law are reflected in the legal reasoning, as the court follows the same procedures that the state laws that IL relies on demand.

On December 30th 2023, the UN General Assembly submitted a request for an advisory opinion of the ICJ on the practices and policies of Israel in the occupied Palestinian teritory. This is the full request, and here is the core of the request:

GA was asking ICJ to advise on alleged breaches of multiple counts of human rights laws that Israel was commiting on the people and the land of occupied Palestine, and to determine if Israel's occupation of Palestine is true, and therefore in breach of international law. This is important for multiple reasons, but especially because in a court case that we all know of, South Africa vs. Israel, South Africa accused Israel of commiting genocide, therefore going against the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Israel's defense in this case (not the only one, but the currently relevant one) was the claim that "Israel has the right to defend itself".

Advisory opinion on the ICJ on Israel's practices in occupied Palestine of July 19th 2024 (here is it in full) comes down to a couple of rulings:

- Israel is an apartheid state (illegal);

- Israel's occupation of Gaza is illegal;

- Israel's annexation of the West Bank is illegal;

- Israel continuously and consistently violates Plaestinian right to self-determination (illegal);

- Israel's settlements in Palestine are illegal;

- Israel's exploitation and theft of Palestine's resources is illegal;

- Israel's forced displacement of Palestinians is illegal.

This means many things, amongst others the fact that ICJ ordered cessation of the Israel colonial project and further settlements, evacuation of illegal settlers, return of land and property and assets to the Palestinians, and reparations to be paid by Israel. But what is extremely important is that the fact that Israel, being and conducting an illegal occupation in Palestine, does not have the right to defend itself. What id incredibly important is that Palestine has the right to self-determination, which means claims of "Palestine does not exist" are false. Palestine exists, and has a right to self-determination.

Now, you might wonder why I went into this without yet stating my point. Here is my point.

International law is tricky. It works on the basis of "good faith" and relying on the agreement of its subjects to obey it. All the UN countries are subject to ICJ rulings. All the UN countries are subject to a million and one treaties and rulings and declarations of the UN they have signed and ratified and pledged thenselves to obey. The ICJ advisory opinion on the legal implications of Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine was made with these facts in mind.

The paragraph I highlighted above means that every single EU/European country that exports arms to Israel is now potentially in breach of the rulling of the highest body of international law that they are bound to obey. The General Assembly is advised and tasked by ICJ to take measures to ensure that Israel's occupation stops. The way of doung this is through sanctions, and that also means that the States currently aiding and abetting Israel's occupation are bound by international law agreements to stop. These countries know this, know that there is no way out now, that they will have to obey sooner or later. This is who the ruling is important for.

Another body of international law is the ICC. International Criminal Court, set in Hague, the first and only criminal court with the jurisdiction to trial individuals for international crimes such as war crimes, agression crimes, human rights crimes and genocide crimes. That ICC is preparing to issue criminal warrants against Netenyahu, Israeli, and Hamas leaders. It is preparing to issues criminal arrest warants to war criminals, and a part of it is influenced by the ICJ ruling. Of course, the countries such as Germany, a cesspit of Nazi capitalists who cannot stand a genocide being commited withiut its involvement is already trying to obstruct this process and by themselves more time to accumulate capital by funding an illegal occupation. Austrian right-wing party tried to do the same, but was blocked by the Greens. Other countries might try to do the same, but the fact is - they will fail. The ICJ advisory opinion made sure of that.

What do you mean, you might be asking yourself. I mean that the whole of international community now has a confirmation from the highest body of international law that holds jurisdiction over them that Israel's occupation is illegal. I mean that it is only a matter of time before the ongoing court case of South Africa about the genocide becomes codified and the ruling reflects the reality of the crimes against humanity we have been witnessing for the past 10 months. I mean that I grew up watching the Hague Tribunal proceedings of ICC in the case of Yugoslavian War Crimes, and that I know that it is only a matter of time before my mornings are once again filled with the proceedings against Netenyahu and other war criminals. I mean that I know and understand how a fight for humanity and dignity must be fought on all sides - by Yemeni military actions and by BDS boycottd and by holding your politicians accountable and by protesting and donating, but it is also being fought in the courts of international law. It is fought in a way that signals to the "west" that the very structures put by these States in place after WW2 to prevent atrocities does not mean that these States are exempt from them. This ICJ ruling is monumental for Europe especially, because no matter how many issues I personally and we all have with the UN bodies, they still mean something. Their opinions and rulings still carry a weight, a weight we have all felt, and their proclamations make it so people and structures and governing bodies who have pledged themselves to be under their jurisdiction cannot pretend they don't know what's happening. Cannot pretend they don't know what they are funding and supporting and making themselves rich on. Europe cannot claim ignorance anymore, and ICJ made sure of that.

What can I say as my final words? I wrote this post because I don't think that a lot of people understand, or understood, what this means. I wrote it because I've been walking in a daze since the ruling, and the hope in my heart scares me as much as it invigorates me. I wrote it because I am certain, now more than ever, that Palestine will be free. I hope you are, too.