Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

🇵🇸 🇩🇰 “For the two-state solution to be realized, there can be no forced displacement of the population or unilateral attempts to change the territory and demography of the occupied Palestinian territory. This constitutes a clear violation of international law.”

13,490 views • 1 year ago •via X (Twitter)

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

This is how Secretary Rubio defines the Strait of Hormuz: "This is an international waterway and international law is very clear... international water is no country can control them." His argument in the context of the Strait of Hormuz suffers from significant legal deficiencies: First, there is no "high seas" corridor in the Strait of Hormuz. Second, the fundamental principle of free and safe passage stipulates that neither "transit" nor "innocent" passage should be prejudicial to the peace, good order, or security of the coastal state. This was the baseline until February 27. Since February 28, when an actual war of aggression was launched against Iran, a fundamental change in the legal landscape occurred. Under international law, passage loses its "innocent" or "transit" status once it involves the transport of weaponry intended for military operations, threats of force, or intelligence gathering against the security of the coastal state. Similarly, a state utilizing a strait to launch an offensive against a coastal state effectively designates that area as a theater of war. Consequently, this situation invokes Article 51 of the U.N. Charter on the right of self-defense, in accordance with a "peremptory norm" that supersedes standard navigation rules. It also invokes the doctrine of rebus sic stantibus (a fundamental change of circumstances), which justifies a legal recalibration of the principles of free and safe passage, balanced against the legitimate security concerns of the coastal state. Third, conversely, Secretary Rubio’s statement effectively defines the illegality of the U.S. blockade, as it is exercised specifically in: a) international waters; and b) areas that are not under U.S. control, to be subjected to its extraterritorial sanctions.

Iran in Japan/ 駐日イラン大使館

12,551 views • 2 months ago