Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Israel/Palestine

FBaggins

(26,820 posts)

12. Not even close. It was closer to the concept of "standing"

Reply to David__77 (Reply #1)

Sun Apr 28, 2024, 12:26 PM

Apr 28

Separate from whether or not the defendant/respondent in a civil case did something wrong - you must first get past the standing hurdle. If you lack standing to even bring the case, it doesn’t matter whether or not the other party’s actions were objectionable.

In this case - she’s merely sayin that it isn’t immediately obvious that SA lacks standing. They might or might not… but it’s at least plausible that they can bring the case.

That’s entirely separate from whether or not the defense plausibly committed an offense - let alone a specific one.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

20 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

President of IJC confirms that it did not decide that SA's claim of genocide was plausible. [View all] lapucelle Apr 27 OP

Right. The ruling was that their right not to be genocided is plausibly being violated. David__77 Apr 27 #1

That's exactly the takeaway that Ms O'Donaghue said was incorrect. lapucelle Apr 27 #3

A relevant section. David__77 Apr 27 #5

A section relevant to the right of SA to bring charges. Beastly Boy Apr 27 #6

Yes, I know. Ms O'Donoghue explained what that the means for those who don't understand the finding. lapucelle Apr 27 #7

It pertains to Israel's actions David__77 Apr 27 #8

The President of the ICJ disagrees with your interpretation of the ruling she authored and released. lapucelle Apr 27 #9

And none of their decisions pertains to plausible violations of anyone's rights. Beastly Boy Apr 27 #11

Disagree. AloeVera Apr 28 #13

People are free to disagree with the President of the ICJ about what she clearly says lapucelle Apr 29 #15

I was disagreeing with you. AloeVera Apr 29 #16

"Palestinians have a plausible right to be protected" is how Ms. O'Donoghue stated it. lapucelle Apr 29 #17

I'll try to explain it differently. AloeVera Apr 29 #18

I'm not sure what or why you're arguing. The Court preserved rights, as it saw fit. lapucelle Apr 29 #19

I was debating a point I think is fair and correct. AloeVera Apr 29 #20

I am assuming you read the summary you cited. Beastly Boy Apr 27 #4

Not even close. It was closer to the concept of "standing" FBaggins Apr 28 #12

Yes, another way of saying what the ICJ President said. AloeVera Apr 28 #14

What does SHE know ? Who is she to keep college sophomores from speaking truth to power? Beastly Boy Apr 27 #2

Here's the analog: Suppose Democracy Now! wanted to bring a case at the ICJ lapucelle Apr 27 #10