Can the #US halting of #WHO funding be justified as a countermeasure? Note, ofc, that this is not the only and by far not the most important question, and even a positive answer doesn’t mean that it should be done -- plus rules on cm constrain as much as authorise. 1/n https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1250194670031974400">https://twitter.com/WhiteHous...
Usual dynamic, trailing structure if not fine legal print in State/IO practice, is (1) IO engages in conduct, (2) viewed as wrongful by a CP, (3) which halts funding until IO ceases to wrongful act, (4) IO folds/CP resumes funding or (5) IO doesn’t fold/no funding/CP folds. 2/n
Worth noting that some bits of the 2001 ILC Articles on countermeasures more clearly customary than others – in my view, basic structural assumptions (Arts 49, 51, 53) are good custom, with a small ? about parameters of proportionality, conditions in Art 52 less clearly so. 3/n
Seems to be fairly creative (legal) reasoning – read charitably, Vivendi annulment type argument that not doing something that has to be done is just as ultra vires as doing something that cannot be done – couched in global administrative law language #impact @nyuiilj 6/n
https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="✅" title="White heavy check mark" aria-label="Emoji: White heavy check mark">Resumption of compliance/termination. In general, suspension of funding is eminently suitable to resumption of compliance. The problem with timing is that criticism seems to be solely of past conduct so not clear what ongoing conduct calls for adoption/maintenance of cm. 8/n
Tl;dr: cm relevant only to the extent that US acts wrongfully, and ? for IO financing experts whether suspension of voluntary funding is; otherwise biggest problem that suspension framed as punishment for concluded past conduct, not as inducement to resume good conduct. 11/11
You can follow @MPaparinskis.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: