kashifshah

joined 1 year ago
MODERATOR OF
 

archive.org link

First, and foremost, references to States’ obligations under international human rights law are not sufficiently robust nor consistently mainstreamed throughout the text. We call on Member States to ground all objectives set out in the document in international human rights law. This includes adding references to “international human rights law” while also maintaining the role of international human rights law as a body of international law. For example, we are concerned that paragraph 30(d) refers to “international law” and fails to recognize the need for States to refrain from the use of mass surveillance and ensure that targeted surveillance technologies are only used in compliance with international human rights law, including the principles of legality, legitimacy, necessity, and proportionality. This paragraph should also acknowledge the need for States to promote privacy-preserving and rights-respecting technologies, including end-to-end encryption, pseudonymity, and anonymity, which secure and protect the confidentiality and security of digital communications, in accordance with various UN resolutions (including the UN Human Rights Council resolution on the Right to privacy in the digital age A/HRC/RES/54/21 and the new General Assembly resolution on the Promotion and protection of human rights in the context of digital technologies A/RES/78/213). We further call on Member States to add references to “international humanitarian law” and “international refugee law” where relevant for the same reasons.

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/19768980

archive.org link

In a historic ruling the International Court of Justice has found multiple and serious international law violations by Israel towards Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including, for the first time, finding Israel responsible for apartheid. The court has placed responsibility with all states and the United Nations to end these violations of international law. The ruling should be yet another wake up call for the United States to end its egregious policy of defending Israel’s oppression of Palestinians and prompt a thorough reassessment in other countries as well.

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/19769250

Summary provided by https://notegpt.io/pdf-summary

Summary

The International Court of Justice has found that Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, violate international law. The Court determined that Israel’s actions, such as its settlement policy, acts of annexation, and discriminatory legislation and measures, constitute a breach of international law, including the prohibition on the use of force and the non-acquisition of territory by force. Israel’s presence in the territory is deemed unlawful, and the Court has called for an end to settlement activities, evacuation of settlers, reparations for damages caused, and non-recognition of the illegal situation by states and international organizations.

Key Insights

  • The International Court of Justice has determined that Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, violates international law.
  • Israel’s settlement policy, acts of annexation, discriminatory legislation, and measures were found to be in breach of international law.
  • The Court has called for an end to settlement activities, evacuation of settlers, reparations for damages, and non-recognition of the illegal situation.
  • The General Assembly and Security Council of the United Nations are tasked with considering further action to end Israel’s presence in the territory.
  • The Court emphasizes the importance of achieving a just and lasting peace in the region for the benefit of all parties involved.

Frequently Asked Questions

Question

What actions were deemed unlawful by the International Court of Justice in the Occupied Palestinian Territory?

Answer

The Court found Israel’s settlement policy, acts of annexation, discriminatory legislation, and measures to be in violation of international law.

Question

What measures did the Court call for to address Israel’s presence in the territory?

Answer

The Court called for an end to settlement activities, evacuation of settlers, reparations for damages caused, and non-recognition of the illegal situation.

Question

Which international organizations are obligated not to recognize the illegal situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory? Answer All states and international organizations are obligated not to recognize the illegal situation in the territory.

Question

What role do the General Assembly and Security Council of the United Nations play in addressing Israel’s presence in the territory?

Answer

The General Assembly and Security Council are tasked with considering further action to end Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/19768980

archive.org link

In a historic ruling the International Court of Justice has found multiple and serious international law violations by Israel towards Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including, for the first time, finding Israel responsible for apartheid. The court has placed responsibility with all states and the United Nations to end these violations of international law. The ruling should be yet another wake up call for the United States to end its egregious policy of defending Israel’s oppression of Palestinians and prompt a thorough reassessment in other countries as well.

 

Summary provided by https://notegpt.io/pdf-summary

Summary

The International Court of Justice has found that Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, violate international law. The Court determined that Israel’s actions, such as its settlement policy, acts of annexation, and discriminatory legislation and measures, constitute a breach of international law, including the prohibition on the use of force and the non-acquisition of territory by force. Israel’s presence in the territory is deemed unlawful, and the Court has called for an end to settlement activities, evacuation of settlers, reparations for damages caused, and non-recognition of the illegal situation by states and international organizations.

Key Insights

  • The International Court of Justice has determined that Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, violates international law.
  • Israel’s settlement policy, acts of annexation, discriminatory legislation, and measures were found to be in breach of international law.
  • The Court has called for an end to settlement activities, evacuation of settlers, reparations for damages, and non-recognition of the illegal situation.
  • The General Assembly and Security Council of the United Nations are tasked with considering further action to end Israel’s presence in the territory.
  • The Court emphasizes the importance of achieving a just and lasting peace in the region for the benefit of all parties involved.

Frequently Asked Questions

Question

What actions were deemed unlawful by the International Court of Justice in the Occupied Palestinian Territory?

Answer

The Court found Israel’s settlement policy, acts of annexation, discriminatory legislation, and measures to be in violation of international law.

Question

What measures did the Court call for to address Israel’s presence in the territory?

Answer

The Court called for an end to settlement activities, evacuation of settlers, reparations for damages caused, and non-recognition of the illegal situation.

Question

Which international organizations are obligated not to recognize the illegal situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory? Answer All states and international organizations are obligated not to recognize the illegal situation in the territory.

Question

What role do the General Assembly and Security Council of the United Nations play in addressing Israel’s presence in the territory?

Answer

The General Assembly and Security Council are tasked with considering further action to end Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

 

archive.org link

In a historic ruling the International Court of Justice has found multiple and serious international law violations by Israel towards Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including, for the first time, finding Israel responsible for apartheid. The court has placed responsibility with all states and the United Nations to end these violations of international law. The ruling should be yet another wake up call for the United States to end its egregious policy of defending Israel’s oppression of Palestinians and prompt a thorough reassessment in other countries as well.

 

archive.today link

The Finance Bill, 2024 was tabled in parliament on 9 May 2024 and faced strong opposition from members of the public and other stakeholders during the public participation stage. This was due to the threats that it posed to data protection, the business environment, and a choking cost of living crisis that would be worsened by increased taxes. While President Ruto announced the withdrawal of the contentious bill on 26 June 2024, the actions of state authorities prior to and after this decision have created a very chilling environment for citizens, human rights defenders, journalists, and political dissidents opposed to the bill and critical of the government’s actions.

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They’re just categorically different, there isn’t an “inside” or an “outside” in the sense of spatial structure as that is something derived a posteriori as part of thought.

So.. there are things that are either within the category of thought or not? Is thought mutually exclusive to material? Is thought composed of material or the other way around? Or are they both the same?

I’m not sure what it would even mean to say reality is “thought”.

That is the standard definition of idealism, is it not? That existence is immaterial?

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

But what justification is there that what is thought of is actually in existence outside of thought? One can think of things that do not exist outside of thought.

What justification is there that reality isn't thought by it's very nature?

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 month ago (5 children)

How do you justify the premise that reality is objectively-existent?

 

archive.org link

Chen Xu, China's ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva, said at the meeting, attended by a delegation of Chinese diplomats and officials, that recommendations rejected by China were "politically motivated based on disinformation, ideologically biased or interfering in China's traditional sovereignty." He condemned what he called an attempt to "smear and attack" China.

China has drawn much criticism over the years for its treatment and detention of Uyghurs and other Muslims. A 2022 U.N. report, published by former U.N. rights chief Michelle Bachelet, said China's treatment of Uyghurs could constitute crimes against humanity, something China has consistently denied.

Thursday's review of China's human rights record before the Human Rights Council was the first since the publication of the 2022 report. ... Each U.N. member state undergoes a review of its human rights record every few years.

 

archive.org link

A “human rights economy” can deliver for people and the planet because it shifts our focus from growth to humanity – grounding the purpose of the economy in fundamental, universal human values. It offers human rights as a guardrail to keep the economy on track – meeting the challenges of the climate crisis, addressing inequalities and eradicating poverty.

This proposition is not some fairytale. Concrete steps can be taken now, starting with choosing measures of progress other than gross domestic product (GDP) – which tells us nothing about the ecological or social fallout of economic activity.

And we need to start valuing what really counts. GDP has no way of accounting for the estimated 16.4bn hours spent every day worldwide on unpaid work, largely carried out by women, that underpins the global economy: caring for children, people with disabilities and older citizens.

 

archive.today link

Evidence cited in the ruling showed how Russia, and its proxy government in the region, have created an atmosphere of oppression, using blanket laws targeting extremism and terrorism to silence dissent. Pro-Ukrainian media outlets have been abolished, while the Ukrainian language has been suppressed in schools. Ukrainian banks have been nationalized, along with their customers’ property and assets, the court found.

Crimean Tatars, an ethnic minority, have also been targeted, and between 15,000 and 30,000 Tatar have fled the region since 2014. Tatar television channels have been removed from the air, their cultural and religious buildings vandalized and some Tatar homes have been painted with crosses. Any gatherings by Tatar leaders or groups deemed pro-Ukrainian have been violently broken up, with attendees detained.

Crimea’s occupying government has also cracked down on religious diversity, raiding madrassas and mosques, expelling Ukrainian Orthodox priests and repurposing their churches. Journalists critical of the regime are also routinely harassed and threatened.

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 months ago

Thanks for taking the time to reply, db0! That is much appreciated.

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You are very welcome!

Indeed, that is a relatively accurate description.

You are free to leave it or delete, but I'd recommend leaving this one, as I've not posted any news about HK yet.

If you come across anything that you really think we need to know about, do post it here, and especially post any relevant human rights-based analysis that you come across.

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Congrats on being the first person besides myself to post here :)

This is on target, but don't flood us with news - resources > news in this community.

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (7 children)

Well, please do share what you find!

You are on the right track w/ idealism vs materialism in psychology, at least.

The question there arose from the brain: how do you rectify the mind/soul with the brain/body? Dualism apparently fails (the idea that there is a separate mind from the brain) which leaves only some form of monism. A sort of hybrid materialism-idealism seems to make the most sense, where consciousness is a property of the universe, like time or space, and different entities have differing consciousnesses. In that sort of a philosophy, when talking about the brain of a person you are equally talking about the experience that person is having, just in different terms.

I suspect that in sociology that would be some sort of unified anarcho-marxism, if such a thing exists. The atomic theory of society seems to be the thing where they are working on unifying language. If society is fully atomized, asking whether a new society arises due to free choice or resource demands is like asking whether rivers rise due to rain or sewer overflow, if that makes sense?

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 months ago

apparently, depending on the language used, it will drive the easily angered on the right to insanity

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (9 children)

You are very welcome!

I'm glad to be able to be of appreciation, as I know how that is - looks like you are in the right place to discuss political science though!

In the interest of conversation, maybe you can explain or point me to an explanation of why Anarchism vs. Marxism is considered "idealism vs materialism" in sociology?

In Psychology, we had an "idealism vs materialism" debate, but it is mostly resolved with a sort of "idealistic materialism" or "materialistic idealism" where, essentially, "idealism <=> materialism", as I understand it.

I'm curious about what the current state of the art is, in that debate!

Either way, I'll definitely spend some time in !politics@lemmy.ml checking things out.

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 2 months ago (11 children)

A good rule of thumb is to measure twice, cut once, so perhaps give it a try twice: once where you answer philosophically and once where you answer practically?

I'm due for taking it again, myself, but I generally consider myself a radical moderate (I'm all for system-wide changes) and I think Pew described me as "faith and family left" when I last took the test.

[–] kashifshah@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 2 months ago (13 children)

Hah, hello neighbor :D

I'm curious how universal these political typologies could be made. I'm sure this one might apply a great deal to a number of western countries, if you change the names accordingly, etc.

view more: next ›