Talk:United Nations Security Council Resolution 2728

Adding the verbatim record to the Further Reading section

Could we place the link to the verbatim record to the Further Reading? https://undocs.org/en/S/PV.9586 It seems vital to understanding the history of what transpired in the meeting. BrandenburgHorse (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. Done. And thanks, from one equine to another. Moscow Mule (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Binding/non-binding

I'm just gonna quote here, because I don't have the legal expertise to argue better than actual international law experts:

It is not necessary to adopt a resolution under Chapter VII for it to be legally binding: It has been established for several decades that resolutions not explicitly adopted under Chapter VII can just as well contain legally binding obligations. The International Court of Justice famously stated in its Namibia Advisory Opinion: "It has been contended that Article 25 of the Charter applies only to enforcement measures adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter. It is not possible to find in the Charter any support for this view. Article 25 is not confined to decisions in regard to enforcement action but applies to ‘the decisions of the Security Council’ adopted in accordance with the Charter. Moreover, that Article is placed, not in Chapter VII, but immediately after Article 24 in that part of the Charter which deals with the functions and powers of the Security Council.” (para. 113) There is thus both a textual and a systematic argument to be made that Article 25 UN Charter extends to all decisions of the Security Council.

It is not necessary to explicitly use the word “decide” for a resolution to be legally binding: Whether or not a resolution contains a decision is thus to be evaluated based on the text in question, not whether the resolution was adopted under Chapter VII or Chapter VI. The ICJ states: “The language of a resolution of the Security Council should be carefully analysed before a conclusion can be made as to its binding effect.” (Namibia Advisory Opinion, para. 114). Here, the South Korean representative suggests that because the Security Council did not use the word “decides”, there is no legal bindingness. However, the Security Council does not typically decide that a ceasefire exists – it cannot will a ceasefire into existence through a decision. Rather, it uses this language to, e.g., decide to establish a peacekeeping mission or decide to deploy observers. The text of the resolution adopted today is unequivocal and strong: it explicitly demands an immediate ceasefire for the month of Ramadan as well as the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages. There is no uncertainty in the language: what weight should a demand carry, if not that of a legal obligation? To compare, in the abovementioned Namibia Advisory Opinion, the Court found (at para. 115) that inter alia the following requests were legally binding: “Calls upon the Government of South Africa to withdraw its administration from the Territory immediately” (S/Res/169 (1969), para 5) and “Calls upon all States…to refrain from any dealing with the Government of South Africa which are inconsistent with paragraph 2 of the present resolution [declaring the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia illegal]” (S/Res/174 (1970), para 5). It is not clear on which basis there should be a difference between the words “calls upon” and “demands” – if anything, the latter has a stronger connotation.

[...] In conclusion, the resolution is – despite statements to the contrary – legally binding and creates a legally binding request for an immediate ceasefire during Ramadan and a legally binding request to immediately release all hostages.

(here is the source) 213.32.254.179 (talk) 06:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I removed the point on Chapter VI resolutions being non-binding. This statement is contentious at best. JDiala (talk) 07:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Text of the resolution: Link to "hostages"

The resolution refers to "all hostages". However, it does not specify that this only refers Hostages held by Hamas. Instead of the current link, we should explain that "all hostages" is being understood in different ways by relevant parties. Cs32en (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I think, «all» does not «only refer[…] Hostages held by Hamas», it does mean «all», even if there are only hostages by Hamas or voters may have deviating secret intentions. Resolution wording is taken extremely seriously. The current link to «Israel–Hamas war hostage crisis» (not sure, you meant this) indeed refers to Hamas hostages. Thanks, Markus Prokott (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit request: Add names of 4 voters

Article version: 1215746708

Request: As for the article protection I want to ask to add names of 4 voters (those in favour/against) to the following paragraph. (bold = changes)

A verbal amendment introduced by Russia reinserting the word "permanent" to qualify the ceasefire in the resolution's first operative paragraph received 3 votes in favour (Algeria, China, Russian Federation), 11 abstentions and 1 against (United States) and therefore failed to pass.

Reason: Everyone likes to now. Esp. the single one who voted against. The 11 abstaining voters are implied. 4 names don't inflate the paragraph too much. The UN does it the same way (see source).

Source: Para. 4 in the first reference given at the end of the paragraph: [1]

Markus Prokott (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Moscow Mule (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Markus Prokott (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)