@VioIeGracee @mdebleser You're just assuming a sociological positivist conception of the normativity of legal norms! A legal norm's normativity expresses itself *regardless of the enforcement is aspires to guide and even when the law is broken*. Like read Kelsen, I don't know what to tell you.

@ergo_praxis @mdebleser The ICJ doesn't adjudicate philosophy. Advisory opinions derive authority from interpretation, not compulsion. Article 65 isn't "positivism" ffs, it's jurisdictional limitation. Ur mixing normative theory with procedural law

@VioIeGracee @mdebleser How are you not following what I'm saying? Kelsen is also a positivist. The pure theory of law just doesn't do a sociological reduction. The ICJ doesn't adjudicate philosophy, legal philosophy clarifies how we should understand the legal order.

@VioIeGracee @mdebleser What I'm saying here is that I don't think legal normativity exhausts itself in compulsion. It expresses itself in different ways, one of which is what we call the "autoritativeness" of the interpretation coming from a particular judicial institution.

@ergo_praxis @mdebleser Congrats, u've just redefined "binding" to mean "respected" That's persuasive authority, not obligation. Article 65 already anticipated your revelation.

@VioIeGracee @mdebleser we're talking at cross purposes.

@ergo_praxis @mdebleser Not at all. One of us is discussing Article 65, the other is doing interpretive mental gymnastics around it. Different subjects, same conclusion.

@VioIeGracee @mdebleser One of us IS discussing art. 65, in response to a tweet that the interpretation of art. 65 has no bearing on!

@ergo_praxis @mdebleser Except it does, son😄 The 2004 ICJ Wall opinion was not a ruling in a contentious case, it was an advisory opinion requested by the UN General Assembly.

@ergo_praxis @mdebleser Under Article 65 of the ICJ Statute, advisory opinions are non-binding :)

@ergo_praxis @mdebleser Only contentious cases under Article 59 are binding, and only on the parties involved.

@ergo_praxis @mdebleser So the correct phrasing would be: "The ICJ advised that transferring populations into occupied territory violates international law." Not "ruled"

@ergo_praxis @mdebleser U originally claimed the ICJ ruled Israel's actions illegal. It didn't, it issued an advisory opinion, non-binding under Article 65. U've spent 20 tweets redefining "binding" to avoid admitting that.

@VioIeGracee @mdebleser Right, the ICJ merely provided us with an authoritative interpretation of the applicable law that constitutes a secondary source of law and specified state obligations under said law in such a way that it found and explicitly argued Israel has violated said obligations.

@VioIeGracee @mdebleser You can split hairs about the technical distinction between contentious cases and advisory opinions all you want. What really matters here is the interpretation of the relevant legal norms and the fact that this interpretation has a special status in the international legal order

@VioIeGracee @mdebleser Like, any interpretation of the normativity of advisory opinions that make them identical to a very persuasive -in the literal sense- or influential argument in a cassese book should be dismissed as motivated to undermine an important component of the int. legal order.

@ergo_praxis @mdebleser The ICJ's advisory opinions clarify, not compel. Their authority lies in persuasion, not enforcement. Calling them "special" law is philosophy dressed as law, and Article 65 exists precisely to stop that conflation.

@VioIeGracee @mdebleser If the ICJ's advisory opinions were the same thing as people creating a white paper at a college workshop, said opinions would not be in the purview of the highest judicial organ of the UN. They would be entrusted to part of the legal bureaucracy of the UN

@ergo_praxis @mdebleser No one said they're college essays. Their value lies in authoritative interpretation, not juridical compulsion. Prestige doesn't convert persuasion into obligation, that's precisely why Article 65 draws that line.

@VioIeGracee @mdebleser Right, and at some point you will have to concede that I don't claim they are dispositive.

@ergo_praxis @mdebleser U tried to, yet here we are.

@VioIeGracee @mdebleser Once more, no I didn't, and this has been clear from the beginning. I think I mentioned they're not dispositive before you started harping on it, as if I said the inverse.

@ergo_praxis @mdebleser Dress it up in all the legal poetry you want, but u've still got to take the L 😄 Israel's position stands within the legal framework, that's before we even touch the facts on the ground. Ur way out of your depth

@VioIeGracee @mdebleser What L? I've been right since the beginning. You just completely misunderstood -that's the charitable interpretation anyway- what I was saying.

@ergo_praxis @mdebleser The audacity lmao what an actual plank fr

@VioIeGracee @mdebleser Both of my posts here are consistent with what I just said! Note that what I say is beyond debate is the interpretation on the prohibition of transfering citizens to a foreign territory, for example.

@ergo_praxis @mdebleser U began by claiming the ICJ ruled against Israel, which it didn't, it issued a non-binding advisory opinion under Art. 65. Then you backpedalled to "authoritative interpretation" which is precisely my point. Are u autistic by any chance?

@ergo_praxis @mdebleser Btw regarding that bit u blabbering about transferring people into foreign territory, ur again full of crap. Like it's astonishing how much someone can yap outta ass.. dude Ik ur mono neural brain wants it so hard for Palestinian cause to be righteous, yet it's not!

@ergo_praxis @mdebleser That clause Art 49(6) GCIV applies to transfer into foreign occupied territory, which the West Bank wasn't under any sovereign control post-'48. That's precisely why Israel argues its position is legally valid, and the ICJ's advisory view remains non-binding under Art 65

@VioIeGracee @mdebleser Foreign occupied territory does not actually need to be under foreign sovereign control, it's enough to not be under your de jure sovereign control. You should know this.

@VioIeGracee @mdebleser But also what happened to the sovereignty of the palestinian mandate, given it was a class 1 mandate, is another big issue. Not clear to me at all the west bank was not the remainder of mandatory palestine made independent.

@ergo_praxis @mdebleser Class A mandates weren't sovereign states. The Mandate for Palestine ended in '48 with no successor entity. Arabs rejected partition, Jordan occupied the West Bank illegally, and sovereignty lapsed. There's no "Palestinian mandate sovereignty" to invoke here.

@VioIeGracee @mdebleser Right, this is what I'm disputing. Class A mandates are sovereign and can not end except by becoming independent.

@VioIeGracee @mdebleser I think Crawford is also reticent to admit the possibility that sovereignty could just lapse. But I'd have to refresh on that.

@ergo_praxis @mdebleser Crawford explicitly says sovereignty doesn't float in the ether waiting for someone to claim it. Mandates weren't sovereign, the League was. When it dissolved and no successor emerged, sovereignty lapsed. Palestine's exactly that scenario.