Talk:United Nations Security Council Resolution 478

message: Your notes very accurately show how chapter VII needs to be invoked in order to issue a mandate to enforce SC decisions. It is very far removed from claiming that without chapter VII, they are considered "non binding under international law". They most certainly are. There is an editor who routinely expounds on these issues, I will try to track him/her down for additional comment.--AladdinSE 22:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the sources repeats the word "binding" 10 times. If this accurately shows something completely different, then it's speaking in code. Amoruso 22:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between "mandate to enforce by arms" being "not binding under international law" 

message: The "basic law" was placed on the Security Council agenda as the result of a letter submitted by the Representative of Pakistan. The quote from the Pakistani journal of Foreign Relations is spot on topic and describes the obligation of members to accept and carry out the Security Council decisions contained in resolution 478 according to the terms of article 25. Here is a summary: 
:*Note 2 on Page 1 of the Repertory says: "The question whether Article 24 confers general powers on the Security Council ceased to be a subject of discussion following the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice rendered on 21 June 1971 in connection with the question of Namibia (ICJ Reports, 1971, page 16)." THAT DECISION applies to all subsequent Article 24 determinations of illegality. Page 19 discusses resolution 478 and says that the Security Council was "acting" on behalf of the members under Article 24 when it formally declared the legislation illegal, and when it determined that the policies and practices in the occupied territories violated the Geneva Conventions. 
:*An ICJ opinion is not just an opinion. In many countries international treaties and resolutions of international organizations are treated under the national constitutions as legal instruments. Countries that "give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter"  have implemented the sanctions adopted under Article 24 on the basis of the Namibia decision despite the so-called "controversy". See National implementation of United Nations sanctions: a comparative study, By Vera Gowlland-Debbas, Djacoba Liva Tehindrazanarivelo  
:*The General Assembly specifically cited resolution 478 in its request for an advisory opinion. At paragraph 22 Judge Higgins noted the SC resolutions: "The question put by the General Assembly asked the Court to respond by 'considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions'" (General Assembly resolution ES-10/14)."
:*At paragraph 24 Judge Higgins said the Court did find: "violations of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (para. 120), and of Articles 46 and 52 of the Hague Regulations and Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (para. 132). I agree with these findings."
:*At paragraph 38 Judge Higgins said that the Article 24 determinations in this and the other Security Council resolutions were legally binding and cited Namibia as the controlling authority: "That an illegal situation is not to be recognized or assisted by third parties is self-evident, requiring no invocation of the uncertain concept of 'erga omnes'. It follows from a finding of an unlawful situation by the Security Council, in accordance with Articles 24 and 25 of the Charter entails 'decisions [that] are consequently binding on all States Members of the United Nations, which are thus under obligation to accept and carry them out' (Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of' South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (19701, Advisory Opinion, I. C. J. Reports 1971, p. 53, para. 115)"
 
:*In International Court of Justice Firmly Walled in the Law of Power in the Israeli–Palestinian Peace Process, by Paul J. I. M. De Waart, Leiden Journal of International Law, 18 (2005), pp. 467–487 the author said that the Court's "brief analysis recited the following facts as relevant for the indication of the legal consequences of the construction of the wall in the OPT:
::*UN rejection of measures taken by Israel from 1967 onwards changing the status of East Jerusalem;#41... ...#41. The Court referred to SCresolutions 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971 and 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980 (Ibid.,at 165–6, para. 75)." 
Those are all WP:RS sources and there is zero WP:OR involved. The WP:POV in the article comes from the argumentative material taken directly from the MFA website. It isn't grounded in any article of the Charter and doesn't cite any authorities. Attempts to exclude the published official positions taken by the organs of the UN regarding "binding determinations" under article 24 are not supported by WP:WEIGHT. harlan (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see either above or below to understand that your attempts to include discussions of Article 24 are WP:OR. WIkipedia is not about truth - it's about quoting sources relevant to the article - DIRECTLY.  Saying there's "zero WP:OR involved." doesn't help your case.  Of course "The WP:POV in the article comes from the argumentative material taken directly from the MFA website." is POV, it's THEIR pov, and it's cited in the correct way, saying it's their opinion.  What does weight have anything to do with it? nothing... it's a simple case of OR. You speak of this resolution, not of others, in this article.. simple. kind regards, Amoruso (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The ICJ did claim that SC Resolutions adopted under Article 24 are binding

message: It isn't clear why the 1995 US legislation belongs on this page, other than a "see also".  What is the justification? Zerotalk 09:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article says that countries moved their embassies out of Jerusalem because of the resolution, which might be true even it's not cited, so here we have a country thinking about moving its embassy into Jerusalem. That's the justification. Amoruso (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Embassy Act 

message: Muskie was talking about the draft resolution before it was adopted. See S/PV.2245%20%28OR%29  paragraph 106, . In the Namibia case the ICJ had said "It would be an untenable interpretation to maintain that, once such a declaration had been made by the Security Council under Article 24 of the Charter, on behalf of all member States, those Members would be free to act in disregard of such illegality or even to recognize violations of law resulting from it." harlan (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muskie's Remarks 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on United Nations Security Council Resolution 478. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110112025712/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1681.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1681.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706021237/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello,
Per today's news, there is now an American embassy in Jerusalem. I think this should be added after the sentence indicating that all withdrawals had completed by 2006, and there should additionally be a small grammatical change. I believe the change should read as follows:
Change: Most nations with embassies in Jerusalem relocated their embassies to Tel Aviv, Ramat Gan or Herzliya  following the adoption of Resolution 478. Following the withdrawals of Costa Rica and El Salvador in August 2006, no country maintains its embassy in Jerusalem.
To: Most nations with embassies in Jerusalem relocated their embassies to Tel Aviv, Ramat Gan or Herzliya  following the adoption of Resolution 478. Following the withdrawals of Costa Rica and El Salvador in August 2006, no country maintained its embassy in Jerusalem until May 2018. Following a controversial announcement in December 2017, the United States relocated their embassy from Tel Aviv to Jersualem on May 14, 2018. 
Potential source to use: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/14/politics/jerusalem-us-embassy-trump-intl/index.html
Cheers,
bleybovich Bleybovich (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2018