According to the debate, they had their reasons. But still – when one hundred and eighty six nations say one thing, and two say another, you have to wonder about the two.

  • cybersandwich@lemmy.world
    81·
    3 months ago

    Can we talk about what defining things like this as a “right” means?

    Otherwise voting to call it a “right” seems super performative. What’s the consequence of making this a right?

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
      121·
      3 months ago

      What’s the consequence of making this a right?

      Just for starters, it implies certain acts intended to deliberately deprive people of access to food constitute a crime. So embargos of regions like Cuba, Ukraine, Sudan, Gaza, and North Korea would be de facto illegal under international law.

      Of course, then you have to start asking questions like “What does it mean to be in violation of international law when the ICJ is so toothless?” But that’s the UN for you. Issuing generally progressive proclamations through a general assembly while a handful of economic heavyweights get to decide how it all gets enforced.

      • trolololol@lemmy.world
        5·
        3 months ago

        Imagine being the only 2 places on earth that go out of your way to be afraid of a toothless organization.

    • Fades@lemmy.worldEnglish
      13·
      3 months ago

      I’m sure they’ll be offering everyone in their respective countries free food as is their newly given right! Right?