On his first trip to Cuba during his third term in office, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva called the embargo imposed by the United States on the island "illegal" and denounced the island's inclusion on the list of state sponsors of terrorism.
        • bdonvr@thelemmy.clubEnglish
          6·
          9 months ago

          ???

          Concerned at the continued promulgation and application by Member States of laws and regulations, such as that promulgated on 12 March 1996 known as the “Helms-Burton Act”, the extraterritorial effects of which affect the sovereignty of other States, the legitimate interests of entities or persons under their jurisdiction and the freedom of trade and navigation,

          Taking note of declarations and resolutions of different intergovernmental forums, bodies and Governments that express the rejection by the international community and public opinion of the promulgation and application of measures of the kind referred to above,

          …

          Reiterates its call upon all States to refrain from promulgating and applying laws and measures of the kind referred to in the preamble to the present resolution, in conformity with their obligations under the Charter of the United Nations and international law, which, inter alia, reaffirm the freedom of trade and navigation;

          To reiterate: in conformity with their obligations under the Charter of the United Nations and international law

          I’m not aware of any way to read that that doesn’t involve concluding that the US’ actions are outside the law.

          In any case I am not interested in further arguing the point. The action is nearly universally condemned and abhorrent - the international “legality” is really not an important point whatsoever and changes little since the UN has little or no power over the US.

            • bdonvr@thelemmy.clubEnglish
              5·
              9 months ago

              If every state except two in a supposedly democratic body made and controlled entirely by said states is of the opinion that something is illegal according to that body’s own laws, and have voted upon such language every year consecutively and similarly unanimously for decades… then is it not? And if not, does it matter?

              Again though the UN could enthusiastically support it and it would still be every bit inexcusable. There is no further value to discussing whether it is “legal” or not.