„reiterates its demand that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and that it comply fully with all its legal obligations in this regard.“ All resolutions adopted by the organs of international or intergovernmental organizations (whether legal or non-legal) refer to „non-binding law“. Terms such as resolution, declaration or decision are used almost synonymously by international organizations. It is important to distinguish between the following types of regulations or resolutions adopted by international bodies: does Israel therefore have an obligation under international law to stop building settlements in the occupied territories, to which the Council is merely adding its own command? That argument appeared to be based on the conclusion of the International Court of Justice in its 2004 advisory opinion on the wall that Israeli settlements in the occupied territories were illegal under international humanitarian law, which clearly implied that Israel`s responsibility under international law required its cessation and dissolution. Despite the binding nature of many UN resolutions, the complexity of international relations – both between member states and between members and non-members – often makes their full implementation impossible. Where there is a will, there is not always a way. Rather, the key question in determining whether a particular provision of a Security Council resolution is legally binding on Member States (i.e. whether the provision is a „decision“ of the Security Council), including the specific addressee of the resolution, is whether the Council has chosen to use language in the provision expressing its intention to establish a legally binding obligation. It is interesting in this context that, in Namibia`s opinion, the Court found that a provision (operative part of paragraph 5) was legally binding, which begins with the words „calls upon all States. However, most scientific commentary in the following decades (including my own) classified the „appeals“ as non-legally binding. So there seems to be room for disagreement on which words fall into which category. When my first post tried to explain that not all the „feather pushers“ of UN resolutions are international jurists or aware of the need to be consistent in their choice of terminology. Usually, resolution coordinators pick up previous resolutions on the same or a similar topic to work on, and then all sorts of changes are proposed by the others. So, if the Council`s request in Resolution 2334 is interpreted as the most convincing, as a complement to the Council`s own order to Israel to abide by its independent legal obligations under international humanitarian law, what legal effect, if any, does the Council`s claim, if any? However, taking fully into account this reservation, it is incumbent upon them, to the extent that the Security Council and its Member States wish the Council`s decisions to have legal effects — which I believe — to use the most consistent language possible when they wish to express their intention to create binding legal obligations.

Dear Dan Thank you for your excellent contribution, which is a useful reminder to readers that a decision of the Security Council does not have to be taken under Chapter VII to be binding on the Member States of the United Nations under Article 25 of the Charter. It is simply a matter of practice and logic that most decisions binding under Article 25 are binding under Chapter VII, which authorizes the Council to take coercive measures — that is, to urge Member States to do something they might not otherwise want to do — in order to maintain international peace and security. However, with regard to a binding decision, and also as a belated response to Dapos and Marko`s contribution many moons ago to Security Council resolution 2249 (2015), the Council`s thoughtful and abundant modern practice has not been refined to such an extent that the Council is signalling these days that it is taking a decision within the meaning of Article 25 of the Charter — which is ipso facto binding – simply by using the word „[d]écides“? In other words, whatever it did or did not do then, the Council certainly does not use terms such as `[d]émans`, let alone `[c]alls up`, to create de novo obligations binding Member States under Article 25 of the Charter. No „decides, no decision, regardless of which individual members of the Council may subsequently argue in favour of a position that was put forward during its preparation and which, in this case, was not taken with sufficient support from the other members of the Council. I`m interested to hear what you (or others) might think. All the best for 2017, despite the gloomy omens Roger However, the wording of UN resolutions also reflects the purely political and non-legal views of the delegates who draft them (e.g. condemn, renounce, plead, regret, etc.). And the final results are usually achieved after a lengthy process of drafting amendments to try to take into account the political positions of each delegation in the room (i.e.

tone down rather than warm up the language; plus the different objectives of the negotiators). International lawyers do not always have the last word. Donald Trump is a world leader who seems to snub the UN and its decisions, seeing it as another hostile competitor to argue and do business with, rather than a benevolent force. Late last year, for example, he threatened to withhold „billions“ of dollars in U.S. aid from countries that voted for a UN resolution rejecting his recognition of Jerusalem as Israel`s capital. Despite the warning, 128 members voted against it and to maintain the longstanding international consensus that the status of Jerusalem (claimed by Israel and Palestine as its capital) can only be settled as a final issue agreed in a peace agreement. He also reported on the increase in violence in the region: an increase in protests, Israeli security forces killed more Palestinians, while Hamas, Palestinian Islamic jihadists and other militants committed violent and provocative acts. Much of it focused on moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. „I would like to reiterate the Secretary-General`s call on everyone to condemn in the strongest terms all actions that have brought us to this dangerous place and led to the loss of so many lives in Gaza,“ Mladenov said.

Resolution 2334 was not adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations and is not legally binding. The resolution does not create additional legal requirements for Israel, nor does it require (or explicitly encourage) UN member states to impose sanctions on Israel in response to Israeli settlement activity. UN Security Council resolutions adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter are definitively binding – and that was the essence of the paragraph you quoted in Kosovo AO. But, as Dan and Roger argued, this does not necessarily mean that UN Security Council resolutions adopted outside of Chapter VII are not binding. The strength or status of the law attributed to soft law norms varies. Most decisions are not legally binding. In other words, their implementation is not mandatory. However, depending on the body adopting such texts, their form and content, resolutions may impose obligations on States and have a certain legal status. In practice, the enforcement of decisions is less easy.

Security Council Resolution 2334 was adopted on 23 December 2016. These are Israeli settlements in the „Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem“. The resolution was adopted by the members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) by 14 votes to 0. Four veto-wielding members of the UN Security Council – China, France, Russia and the UK – voted in favour of the resolution, but the US abstained. UN resolutions are decisions or recommendations agreed upon by the issuing body. For example, Security Council Resolution 1373, adopted unanimously on September 28, 2001, was a counterterrorism measure adopted after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States. The resolution was adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations and is therefore binding on all UN Member States. The resolution established the Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) of the Security Council to monitor State compliance with its provisions. It also sought to restrict immigration law and oblige States to take appropriate measures and controls before granting refugee status to asylum-seekers and to verify whether they have planned, facilitated or participated in terrorist acts.