U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres arrived at the BRICS summit in the Russian city of Kazan on Oct. 22, despite criticism from Ukraine, Voice of America reported.
The BRICS group, a bloc of countries that includes Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the United Arab Emirates, is convening in Kazan for a three-day summit from Oct. 22-24. According to Moscow, 36 world leaders are participating in the conference.
Guterres is expected to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the event on Oct. 24, according to Russian presidential aide Yuri Ushakov.
Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry criticized the U.N. secretary general’s visit.
Yeah, I can read the definition as well as you can. What you’re proposing is an interpretation of “military advantage” - one which would let any number of bad guys from history off the hook. Oh, and also Hamas - Oct 7 advanced their goals quite well, as you’ve pointed out with the hostages.
That’s because we’re discussing the definition of proportionality outside the broader context of the laws of warfare. It is a principle applied to specific strikes within the context of military action that is justified under international law. So no, it doesn’t just license a group like Hamas to do what they did on the grounds that it helped them achieve their goals.
Okay, who says that. That’s an incredibly narrow context, I’m not even sure what “strikes” would mean here - since it’s usually applied to a tactical context that’s way below the granularity of any military treaty I’ve ever seen.
Oh come on, there are well-established doctrines of internal law related to war - you know, the same “international law” that anti-Zionists love to accuse Israel of violating all the time.
‘Strike’ is the word I chose and may not be the word that actually appears in the documents that outline international law on the matter, but you get the point. This is a silly discussion.
I assure you, I don’t know what exact rules you mean, and suspect they don’t exist. (No shade on you, though)
As far as I know, proportionality is vague, but applies on every scale, in every situation. The actual lawyers for Israel have argued that their overall response has been proportional. (Because Hamas is hiding in the Gaza strip, and so it’s all a legitimate target to vapourise. By that standard, they’re right, and they’ve actually been generous, but it’s a dumb standard)
Have you heard of the Geneva Conventions? How can you accuse Israel of waging war that is disproportionate and then turn around and say it’s a vague term and international laws of war don’t exist?
Vague insofar as it’s totally left to courts and individuals to interpret what the exact threshold of disproportional is. That’s why there’s a cottage industry in dissecting the ethics of every individual thing the US did in it’s recent wars. Damage and casualties are extremely lopsided here, though, even if you argue the lopsidedness is justified somehow.
I was trying to include the nuances to be fair to you, but apparently that was just confusing.
The main mention is Article 57, called Precautions in Attack, and it has this nice little section:
From a Westpoint academy article I just stumbled on, on proportionality:
The military objective here being a few Hamas fighters sprinkled around, and civilians and civilian objects being all of Gaza. I’m now pretty certain there isn’t a loophole based on what you’re doing or thinking at the time, like you seem to be suggesting.
You can’t cherry-pick one statement out of Article 57 and ignore everything else. Read the entire section. The whole point is to prohibit intentional attacks on civilians but to provide justification for attacks that harm civilians. Even attacks directly on civilians are justified under international law if those civilians are directly involved in hostilities. Here’s a brief article that summarizes these concepts: https://hhi.harvard.edu/files/humanitarianinitiative/files/conduct_of_military_operations_in_urban_areas.pdf?m=1615497739
I did read the entire thing - it’s not long. Yes, you can unintentionally harm civilians, proportionately.
It’s not intrinsic to urban warfare to do it this way, either. Compare any of the American operations of this millennium.