• @TokenBoomer
    link
    English
    -1
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I should have said unethical or extrajudicial. The United States is preventing a sovereign country from trading. Just because it is “legal” by American law doesn’t make it ethical. You can argue the legality. You may even agree with the ethics. But it is outside international law and condemned by the UN. I never argued the legality of the U.S. law. I am arguing that the sanctions are inhumane and unnecessary. So the ship should have never been seized.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Trade embargoes do not violate international law. Otherwise, we would condemn Iran for its embargo against Israel. But Iran is free to pursue whatever trade policy it wants.

      And don’t confuse a statement by a UN employee for a statement by the UN.

      Iran sanctions are meant to slow their nuclear program and thus de-escalate the region. It’s possible they are now counterproductive. But it’s also possible that without them, a paranoid right wing Israeli government would have openly attacked Iran by now. So it may well be the lesser evil.

      • @TokenBoomer
        link
        English
        01 year ago

        Trade embargoes do not violate international law.

        International laws do not exist. Source. Thus, the unilateral sanctions of the U.S. is beyond the law, and could be considered an act of war. The geopolitics of the region is not my concern. The unethical sanctions are.

        And don’t confuse a statement by a UN employee for a statement by the UN.

        The United States will not allow a vote in the UN on sanctions. That’s why they have to do press releases. It is from the UN. The nuclear sanctions are supported by the UN, but not the economic sanctions. Which is why the tanker was seized.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          International laws do not exist.

          Alena Douhan, the Special Rapporteur you cited.

          States have an obligation under international human rights law

          Make up your mind. If they don’t exist, then what she said is meaningless.

          And on the subject of Ms Douhan…

          The Special Rapporteurs are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. … Special Procedures’ experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity.

          Looks like she was speaking for herself, not for the UN.

          • @jarfil
            link
            English
            01 year ago

            States have an obligation under international human rights law

            The Human Rights law, is “international”, as in more than one nation recognizes it… and only 160+ of ~200 nations routinely break it with little consequence.

          • @TokenBoomer
            link
            English
            -1
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            This is pedantic and not worthy of my time. You have no interest in the truth, only in winning. So, great you won. We should sanction the world into panic and starvation until countries destabilize and launch wars that destroy humanity. Nice win!