#United Nations Charter

[benkaden]

Ansichtskarte / Vintage Postcard

The Signing of the United Nations Charter

UNITED NATIONS NATIONS UNIES Lake Success, NewYork The Charter of the United Nations was signed at San Francisco on 26 June 1946.

OFFICIAL UNITED NATIONS PHOTO (Department of Public Information)

[commiepinkofag]

Israeli ambassador shreds UN charter, May 10, 2024

[agentfascinateur]

Israel blacklisted by the UN for harming children

Israel's inclusion in the blacklist is very problematic and may cause countries in the world to impose an arms embargo on Israel

It's literally been a children's holocaust.

[sky-daddy-hates-me]

I find it hilarious that he claims giving rights to the state of Palestine is against the charter when the first page of the UN Charter literally states that "we the peoples of the United Nations determined to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small."

One of the purposes for the UN's existence in article 1 is literally "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace"

Tell me fucking Gilad Erdan, how allowing palestine more rights goes against allowing everyone basic human rights and allowing the self determination of a state?

If you truly value the UN Charter then you should abide by it and encourage everyone to throw Israel, Russia, China, USA, UK, and Germany out. I mean article 6 does clearly say that "A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council."

[head-post]

Land for land: how Ukraine violated UN Charter with Kursk incursion, alarming message to Global South

Europe is getting dragged into the war in Ukraine, while EU and US officials endorse Ukraine’s incursion into the Kursk region. Kyiv’s actions violate the UN Charter and send an alarming signal to the global South about the double standard policy.

The incursion of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) into the Kursk region, Russia, was a daring gamble for the country’s military commanders, who deployed their limited resources on a risky offensive with no guaranteed success, AP News reported.

After initial signs of progress, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky broke the silence and outlined the interim results of Kyiv’s efforts. By Wednesday, Ukrainian officials claimed that the army allegedly controlled at least 74 minor settlements. However, a week after the Kursk invasion began, the overall purpose of the military operation remains unclear.

Military experts split in their opinions: some say that Ukraine will entrench itself in the positions it has already occupied, whereas others claim that the AFU will continue its active offensive without the intended end goal. However, the incursion has already affected the protracted standoff.

By attacking the Kursk region, Ukraine has reportedly brought in a lot of scarce equipment and manpower, resulting in weakened positions in other areas where active fighting is taking place. In the Pokrovsk and Toretsk directions, Russian troops are breaking through the defences of the AFU, according to Ukrainian media. The Russians are rushing towards Pokrovsk, a key strategic hub.

In Niu-York, formerly Novhorodske, Russia advanced by almost 1.5 kilometres. Fighting continues in Hrodivka, Zhuravka, and along the railway towards Novohrodivka and Mykolaivka, Donetsk region. To the south, in the Vuhledar area, Russian forces are also attacking, breaking through to the major O0532 road and menacing to take the city of Vuhledar.

UN Charter violated, talks derailed

Having launched the incursion into the Kursk region, Ukraine has in fact violated Article 2, paragraph 4, of the UN Charter, which prohibits the forceful border violation of other States.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Previously, the Ukrainian authorities were actively accusing Russia of attacking the territory of another state, but now Kyiv is making the same move. Furthermore, President Zelensky derailed the possibility of negotiations in the near future, which Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said Ukraine was ready for and which had been actively promoted by international mediators.

According to The Independent, Mykhailo Podolyak, the top aide to the Ukrainian president, stated that the invasion served as a tool to “coerce” Russia into peace talks.

We need to use absolutely clear tools to coerce Russia [into negotiation]. One of them is a military instrument of coercion. That is, we need to inflict significant tactical defeats on Russia, in addition to economic and diplomatic tools. In the Kursk region, we are seeing the optimisation of this military tool of coercion to force Russia into the negotiation process.

However, Russian President Vladimir Putin has already declared that the possibility of negotiations is lost after the incursion into the Kursk region.

The intrusion is moving into its second week, but the reaction of international observers is already raising questions. A senior US defence official revealed that Kyiv allegedly did not inform Washington of a long-term plan after the start of the incursion, according to Defense One.

We didn’t get any advanced notification. What the Ukrainians were able to do was operational security, and that is something that I think we should be giving credit for. It definitely surprised the Russians.

According to the official, the Pentagon is “asking the Ukrainians what their real intent is, kind of long term, and how it plays into future negotiations.” However, there has been no statement that Ukraine’s actions violate the UN Charter on international borders, nor has there been any condemnation.

The global community does not seem intent on imposing sanctions on Kyiv, whereas Moscow faces multiple packages of sanctions for exactly the same actions against Ukraine.

Read more HERE

[runwayrunway]

No. 37 - National Airlines

This post is about liveries, I promise! That is the only thing it's about. No tangents to be found!

Extra! Extra! Read all about it! New* livery dropped from an established airline!

*not, like, brand new. Just relatively new. I was informed of it very recently.

It must be pretty hard to name an airline. I've never had to do it, but I have worldbuilt fantasy settings, and choosing names for things is broadly speaking very difficult. There's a reason so many surnames are either vocational, geographic, or patronymic. It's really hard to come up with something interesting and you just have to settle for "that's John from Over There. Yeah, the greengrocer. Yeah, Bob's kid," and that's how it's always been. When etymologies develop they tend to develop slowly and unintentionally. You usually don't just hit on a perfect name for something, but you need to put something on your tax forms, if you do pay those.

Flag carriers have it easy. They just get to use the name of their country, maybe with a 'royal' tossed in if they're still a monarchy. But private airlines? You have to mess around a bit. Some hit on something pretty good, like IndiGo or, I hate to hand it to David Neeleman, Breeze. And some, on the other hand...completely phone it in.

I have a soft spot deep in my heart for airlines with unbearably stupid names. Things like 'Jet2' and 'Fly2Sky' and my personal favorite, 'Fly Air'. Cargo carriers have their own brand of this, some combination of 'Cargo' and frequently 'Logic', leading to my personal favorite 'CargoLogicAir', which went defunct last year.

One name is really weirdly popular. Seriously, I don't get why it's popular, because it's a terrible name. I've done a lot of talking about national airlines, lowercase, adjective followed by noun, but it's time to talk about National Airlines, proper noun, capitalized.

Why would you name your airline this? It's such a silly name. National...to what country? Certainly it's probably clear based on what country it's operating in, but I don't think that's an excuse. And there have been an entire five National Airlineses in the US. Since 1934 there has never been a period of five years or more without at least one, and sometimes more, National Airlines in operation. It's a bizarre phenomenon and my only guess is that it's a side effect of the US's lack of flag carrier, where legacy carriers all wanted to have a name that sort of sounded like what a flag carrier might have. United Airlines, American Airlines, US Airways/USAir, Republic Airlines...National Airlines just feels like it belongs there.

I might cover this livery in future. Let me know if you'd want that.

Without question the most historically significant National Airlines was the one founded in 1934. Based in Miami, in the 70s it was one of the elite few carriers - the others being Braniff, TWA, and of course Pan Am - allowed to operate service to Europe, meaning it was actually an international airline. It was merged into Pan Am in 1980.

Today's National Airlines was founded in 1985. That's right, they've existed for nearly 40 years, likely without your knowledge! They fly charters, both passenger and cargo, though since 2015 they've also had a couple of scheduled routes - and yes, they fly internationally. Their fleet has ten entire aircraft. To be fair, they're all jets. The smallest thing they've ever operated is a DC-8.

For one whole year they had a Tu-204, for some reason.

If you know them, you probably know them for that one plane crash! And that's not important at all here and occurred in circumstances completely irrelevant to normal operation for basically all airlines, but I just want to point out that the accident plane was named for the owner's wife, and years on the company gave the name to another airframe. I'm not saying that this plane is also going to crash - it is so unlikely that it's not worth considering - but I do just feel like that's got to be tempting fate. Imagine telling your wife the second plane you named after her also crashed. I can see that ending in divorce.

Imagine if the plane was literally named after your wife, too. I could never do that to myself.

I didn't know there was a .aero domain. Huh! You learn something new every day. "We Deliver The World" is funny for an airline called National, and even funnier now that they're a scheduled passenger airline. Anyway, the livery. Nicely branded, not terribly many similar ones to confuse it with, big billboard wordmark in a legible and minimally offensive sans serif font. As for the main design...I look at it and vividly feel like it's familiar but can't quite place where from. Of course, it has quite the typical vaguely patriotic vibe to it, but that can't possibly be the entirety of it, so what...oh. I think I know what it reminds me of.

It's a shame the USPS doesn't have airplanes, because they could probably do something at least a little interesting.

It is far from an exact resemblance. But I think that has to be it.

The design on the tail also reminds me a bit of the IndiGo swoops even though they're definitely not related. It's just that sort of really long dramatic wave pattern in a similar color scheme. They even both have a sort of 'trim' on the side.

I do think the wave loses something by getting cut off sharply in the middle there. It reminds me of Airbus's carbon fiber livery where it starts to resemble a mermaid's tail...and that's something airlines should try to do on purpose, yes, but doing it by accident doesn't really do it for me. It feels like it stops the momentum in a way.

National made the...interesting choice of using both white and silver in the same livery. I think it...kind of works, if only because the white surrounded by the blue doesn't really blare out the way it does when it's the main color. The silver itself is...also interesting. It looks like the plane has been painted using metallic sharpie.

They probably use these to cover up chips in the paint.

This livery has a lot going on but it just feels kind of cluttered and boring, to be honest. It is undeniably USPS-y, so I think maybe somebody who doesn't live in the US wouldn't look at it the way I do, but it just reminds me of mail even though I don't think they even carry mail. The idea of being a passenger on a USPS-looking airplane is a bit strange to me.

Flag in the window not changing my mind about the feeling of the name.

This livery is one of contradictions. Clearly recognizable yet somehow generic; full of atypical features yet somehow still boring. It feels almost inexplicably cluttered, and above all it feels sort of sloppy. I think that's really a sign of the era it comes from. The 1980s were a weird time for airline liveries. It was in the early 80s when cheatlines really began to fall out of favor, and we entered an era of airlines trying to figure out what they wanted to do instead. They experimented with colorblocking, vertical stripes, all sorts of things that hadn't been seen yet. Not all of them were super creative. We got a lot of planes that were half white and half off-white, some early Eurowhite-esques like SAS's belly stripes and JAL's good-logo-bad-livery situation. It also produced a fair few liveries which really stuck out, enough to carry over to the modern day. Korean Air is a prominent example designed around the same time as National. Also designed around the same time is my second-ever subject, a livery I chose to cover specifically to discuss how a mostly-white livery could be done well: Kalitta Air. And a handful of these odd liveries are still flying right now, like KAL's.

Okay, but the all-grey, two-tiered wordmark DC-8 livery actually looks so much better.

That's where the sloppy feeling comes from, I think. Cheatline liveries, modern Eurowhite liveries, minimalist billboard liveries, even the transitional 90s horizontal colorblock - these were iterated on over and over again. They might be boring but they usually seem very deliberate. In the 80s, liveries were designed how I used to build characters when I was a preteen playing 3.5e. You add things and you don't really think about how they work together. And there's...some charm to it. But you know what? It's been nearly 40 years. Maybe they've refined it to something a little nicer.

No. No. How could you do this to me? You solved a problem by making it worse! Like, yes, it does look marginally cleaner at the cost of individuality, but just...why leave the red line in if you're cleaning things up? Before, it lined up with the start of the blue curve, but now it has no reason to exist! It looks less like part of the livery and more like, whoops, my monitor's yaw string is telling me my desk is slipping to the left!

Like, it's such a minimal change, and in theory, yes, it addresses my earlier issues, but it doesn't actually manage to stop being generic or boring, and it doesn't manage to stop looking a little messy and lacking in direction, and honestly removing the singular color they didn't share with USPS didn't help them either!

I think what bothers me most, though, is that it doesn't feel much more deliberate. It might be the fact that they made such minimal changes, or the fact that they didn't manage to make it look that much neater, but it looks like they tried to improve their livery without knowing what makes a livery good or bad.

Once upon a time they were novices trying their hands at an art which was in a turbulent place for even experienced airlines, unsure of what they were doing but trying their best. I can't give them any sympathy for that anymore. They have committed to being persistently incompetent. They make lip service towards improvement, but they don't know what improvement would look like. They're out of their depth. They're washed up. They don't know what to do.

Airline liveries often seem to function on a trend cycle similar to clothing. Every ten years or so, large airlines do a brand refresh. Smaller carriers, maybe every twenty years. But some liveries stay longer, either through timelessness or through inertia.

Kalitta Air was timeless. They kept their livery for what felt like eons and it never stopped looking good. Sure, it's a little retro, but in a classy way. It doesn't look dated, it looks stylish. I mean, this company was founded by a racecar driver!

I really like this picture on their website.

Maybe a couple of little tweaks wouldn't be the end of the world. I think the cheatlines could be shortened a bit, maybe, since they make the nose look a bit like it's being pinched, or like the cheatlines are a very elaborate moustache, and maybe the wordmark could be moved a bit forward. Minor tweaks on that order have been made before. But the livery as a whole is fantastic.

In 2021, they released a new one.

The livery of a cargo carrier from Michigan is a very minor part of my life. But when I first saw this image, I really, for a moment, thought that I genuinely wished I had never been born.

I read a lot of comments about it on whatever forums I could find. Generally a lot of my opinions are actually a bit contentious, but I couldn't find anyone who disagreed with me. And one thing I saw repeated fairly often was that this plane looks unfinished. You can't modernise something by just taking away one of its most prominent features, if not its very most prominent feature, even if white is in fashion. This livery was designed with cheatlines. Taking off the cheatlines doesn't make it look like a modern livery, it makes it look like a charter plane midway through being painted for a wet lease. It's just miserable.

And National Airlines isn't as bare now, and wasn't quite as incredible before, but it feels much the same. You can't update something by just removing part of it. That's not new. It's not modern. It's not slick, or clean, or minimal, or whatever else you want to call it. It's unfinished.

So they start out sloppy and they end up looking like a shell of their former self. What do I rate these? Well, I definitely prefer the original livery, that probably won't shock anyone, but the difference is so negligible. Sloppy and inept. Being silver instead of white, or cleaner rather than messier, isn't going to save you.

So they'll both get a D+.

That feels like such an unfulfilling rating to give, but at the end of the day I don't feel like there's anything else to say. They were just figuring it out, and I am too. I blindly stumble into a tepid dissatisfaction that makes me feel nothing at all, really, to the point my own distaste for the revision feels phoned-in. But there's really not much else to say about it. It doesn't feel like anybody, in this process, really understood what makes a good livery, and they didn't learn a thing since 1985.

[tomorrowusa]

You can tell how insecure Putin is. He apparently told his stooges on Kremlin-run media to stop calling Volodymyr Zelenskyy "president".

Of course you can still get into big trouble in Russia for calling Putin's illegal invasion a "war". Putin's 3-day special military operation is now into Day 574.

The Kremlin has instructed Russian state-run media outlets to stop referring to Volodymyr Zelensky as “president” of Ukraine, the independent news website Holod reported Monday, citing the recipients of the presidential administration’s directive.  Television broadcasters and online publications are instead advised to use the phrase “the Zelensky regime” or call the Ukrainian president by name only, according to the instructions circulated last Friday. The instructions are currently limited to news headlines in order for Zelensky’s name to appear without his official status on Russian online news aggregators. Holod analyzed Russian news stories published since Friday and found partial compliance with the Kremlin’s directive.

FYI: The Moscow Times moved to Amsterdam in 2022. That's why they're still able to publish items like this.

Meanwhile, PRESIDENT Zelenskyy was at the United Nations in New York asking why Russia, a country which has violated the UN Charter, is still a UN member.

Zelensky urges unity in dramatic UN address

Hailed with vigorous applause when he took the stage, Zelensky used his 15 minutes to accuse Russian leaders of terrorism and genocide, citing in particular the removal of Ukrainian children from the country. Ukraine has long accused Russia of forcibly deporting Ukrainian children from occupied areas – allegations which form the basis of an international war crimes arrest warrant against Russian President Vladimir Putin. Some Russian officials have admitted the practice, publicly boasting about their efforts to bring children to Russia, place them in Russian families and, in some cases, give them Russian passports.

PRESIDENT Zelenskyy seemed to refer to the folks ignorant about Eastern Europe who preach "compromise" with Russia.

In a warning to other nations over “shady” cooperation with Russia, the Ukrainian president also invoked the death of Russian Wagner boss Yevgeny Prigozhin last month. “I am aware of their attempts to make some shady dealings behind the scenes. Evil cannot be trusted. Ask Prigozhin if one bets on Putin’s promises,” he said.

Occasionally German Chancellor Olaf Scholz nas not always been enthusiastic about the conflict. But in his speech at the UN he seemed fully on board with the PRESIDENT of Ukraine.

Peace without justice is dictatorship, says Germany's Scholz

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz warned of "phony solutions" in the search for peace in Ukraine during his speech at the United Nations General Assembly. "For peace without freedom is called oppression. Peace without justice is called dictatorship. Moscow must finally understand that," Scholz said, calling on Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the war. Ukrainians were "fighting for their lives and their freedom for the independence and territorial integrity of their country, for the preservation of the very principles to which we all committed ourselves in the UN Charter," Scholz said. "And it is Russia's president who can end it (the war) at any time with a single order," he added.

Absolutely, Herr Bundeskanzler. Putin's Russia started this illegal genocidal war on its own and the only negotiations needed to end it is to arrange a ceasefire to allow Russia to withdraw promptly.

Of course Putin was not at the UN. He seldom ventures outside of Russia, except to his satellite Belarus, for fear of being arrested as a war criminal.

[mediaheights]

On October 24, which is United Nations Day, they celebrate the anniversary of the UN Charter's adoption in 1945. The majority of its signatories, including the five permanent members of the Security Council, confirmed the founding text of the United Nations, which led to the creation of the organization.

#uno #UnitedNations #MEDIAHEIGHTS #digitalmarketingcompany #searchengineoptimization #content #instagrammarketing #advertisingagency #web #MEDIAHEIGHTSPRCOM #best #public #relation #agency #in #chandigarh #mohali #punjab #north #india #buildingrelationships #globally #customer #internetbanding — at media heights #smo #branding #facebook #twitter #marketingonline #brand #searchengineoptimization #internetmarketing #follow #digitalagency #marketingagency #motivation #digitalmarketingtips #onlinebusiness #websitedesign #marketingonline #brand #searchengineoptimization #content #instagrammarketing #advertisingagency #web #technology #onlinebranding #branding360degree #SEO #SEObrandingagency #websiteranking #websitetrafic #Digitalmarketing #mediaheights #OnlineAdvertising #instagrammarketing #advertisingagency #web #marketingonline #brand

[acpsalewaanewspaper]

مشروعية استخدام القوة بتفويض من مجلس الأمن بين أحكام الميثاق والممارسة الدولية

مشروعية استخدام القوة بتفويض من مجلس الأمن بين أحكام الميثاق والممارسة الدولية   مشروعية استخدام القوة بتفويض من مجلس الأمن بين أحكام الميثاق والممارسة الدولية الكاتب : حساني خالد الملخص: تحاول هذه الدراسة البحث عن مشروعية الممارسة الدولية الجديدة لمجلس الأمن والتي تتضمن تفويض الدول استخدام القوة بين نصوص الميثاق مقارنة بالممارسة الدولية، حيث تعتبر سلطة مجلس الأمن في استخدام القوة العسكرية من بين…

[lefemmerougewriter]

I fully support an amended U.N. Charter allowing the U.N. General Assembly to pass binding resolutions with approval from a supermajority of U.N. member states, but only when those resolutions are related to international (but not internal) affairs. - Mara

From my AO3 fic entitled "A Responsibility to Prevent Genocide?: Royalty, Revolution, and Bloody Zionists"

[alewaanewspaper1960]

استعمال القوة وفق ميثاق الأمم المتحدة

استعمال القوة وفق ميثاق الأمم المتحدة   استعمال القوة وفق ميثاق الأمم المتحدة الكاتب : مناصرية زهرة . موساوي أمال الملخص: تبنت عصبة الأمم سابقا فكرة مفادها بأن أخر ما تلجأ إليه الدول هي الحرب، وقد جاء في ميثاق الأمم المتحدة فيما بعد نص صريح ألا وهو تحريم اللجوء إلى القوة أو حتى التهديد بها، و أعطى هذا الميثاق الحق للدول في الدفاع الشرعي عن نفسها في المادة 51 بحيث أنه ليس من المنطق بشيء أن يتم…

[agentfascinateur]

Where is the "Article 5" for the 207 UNRWA workers killed by Israelis?

#world humanitarian day

#patricide against UN

#an attack on all

[amereid1960]

استعمال القوة وفق ميثاق الأمم المتحدة

استعمال القوة وفق ميثاق الأمم المتحدة   استعمال القوة وفق ميثاق الأمم المتحدة الكاتب : مناصرية زهرة . موساوي أمال الملخص: تبنت عصبة الأمم سابقا فكرة مفادها بأن أخر ما تلجأ إليه الدول هي الحرب، وقد جاء في ميثاق الأمم المتحدة فيما بعد نص صريح ألا وهو تحريم اللجوء إلى القوة أو حتى التهديد بها، و أعطى هذا الميثاق الحق للدول في الدفاع الشرعي عن نفسها في المادة 51 بحيث أنه ليس من المنطق بشيء أن يتم…

[xtruss]

From The Rapes Capital of The World, RANDIA! Fascist Indian Supreme Court’s Unilateral Rulings Driven By 2024 Election Consideration

— Jin Cuodao | December 18, 2023

Illustration: Xia Qing/Global Times

The Fascist Supreme Court of India upheld Indian government's decision to abolish Article 370 of the Constitution on December 11, and ruled that the government acted lawfully when it revoked the autonomy of the state of Occupied Jammu and Kashmir and brought it directly under control of the center.

At the same time, the ruling deemed the so-called Ladakh Union Territory, established by the Indian government in 2019, as legally valid. This ruling not only disregards the wishes and interests of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, but also overlooks the bilateral agreements and existing contradictions between India and Pakistan, as well as between China and India. Furthermore, it ignores the consensus and calls from the international community.

Pakistan firmly rejects the Supreme Court's ruling, stating that it has "no legal value" and that the international law doesn't recognize New Delhi's "unilateral and illegal actions" of August 5, 2019. The spokesperson of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated on December 13 that China has never recognized the so-called union territory of Ladakh set up unilaterally and illegally by India. India's domestic judicial verdict does not change the fact that the western section of the China-India border has always belonged to China. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation has also called for the resolution of the regional issue in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.

So why did the Indian government once again unilaterally provoke the dispute over the Kashmir issue? First, it may want to take advantage of the current favorable international environment. Currently, the international strategic environment is very favorable to India. The US regards China as its biggest strategic competitor and sees India as a pillar to counterbalance China, so Washington no longer focuses on the Kashmir issue. Pakistan is facing political, economic and social crises and challenges domestically, with weak national strength resulting in a decline in its global strategic position.

Currently, India's GDP is around 11 times that of Pakistan, and the significant change in the strength of the two countries clearly favors India, with the gap between them likely to continue to widen. In addition, some Muslim countries value the Indian market and maintain friendly relations with India.

In addition, India's move may be related to the 2024 Indian general elections, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi having declared his intention for a third term. Despite leading in opinion polls, Modi faces a challenge from the opposition coalition. The main activities of the Indian government in 2023 as well as the Fascist Hindus Extremist’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) are actually geared toward the general elections next year.

The revocation of the special status of Indian-administered Kashmir is one of the key promises of the BJP during the 2019 general elections, and the Supreme Court's decision to issue this ruling by the end of 2023 - just a few months before the general elections - is both to endorse and justify the decision of the BJP in 2019, and also to highlight Modi's tough image of practicing what he promises and consolidating his position among the domestic population, especially in the Hindi-speaking regions, to garner more support and votes.

Kashmir is an internationally recognized disputed area, and is not an issue that can be resolved by unilateral domestic legislation or by altering maps and constantly reinforcing the narrative of its ownership. India's attempts to endorse the BJP through the Supreme Court of India and to realize its objective of permanent possession by altering the demographic structure of Indian-controlled Kashmir is an act of unilateralism that places domestic laws above international law. This does not find solutions to problems, but rather creates more and more problems.

This is a great irony for India, who is striving to become a "leader of the global South" and a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. India's constant unilateral repetition of such behavior cannot be justified and will only lead to opposition from Pakistan and the countries concerned, as well as resentment from the international community, thus resulting in deeper contradictions and fissures. The Kashmir issue, which is a historical legacy of the British colonization, can only be resolved properly and peacefully in accordance with the UN Charter, the UN Security Council resolutions and bilateral agreement.

In the recent Israel-Palestine conflict, the Indian government had initially strongly supported Israel's campaign against Hamas, reflecting its deep-seated hatred of Muslims and its disdain for disunity in Muslim countries, as it had done in the case of Kashmir. The Supreme Court's ruling will have a negative impact on the regional situation. While resolutely defending its rights and interests, China adheres to its basic position of resolving disputes through dialogue and strives to play a positive and constructive role in maintaining regional peace and stability.

— The author is a scholar of international studies in Shanghai.

[pebblegalaxy]

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Self-Defense and International Law Perspectives

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a complex and deeply rooted issue that has been the subject of intense debate and international scrutiny. The question of self-defense and occupation is at the heart of this ongoing dispute, and it is essential to examine the arguments from both sides within the framework of international law. It is important to note that international law is not monolithic,…