I am not sure anyone has standing, not even a government. Countries can dispute how well another follows WHO regs at the ICJ but not sure they can do so with WHO as the defendant. Remember immunity?
But I think that bringing these issues to officials in many countries highlights the underlying rot at the heart of the WHO proposals and wil…
I am not sure anyone has standing, not even a government. Countries can dispute how well another follows WHO regs at the ICJ but not sure they can do so with WHO as the defendant. Remember immunity?
But I think that bringing these issues to officials in many countries highlights the underlying rot at the heart of the WHO proposals and will make nations hesitate to sign on.
It is the right assumption, Meryl. Educate these countries so they realize the consequences of being affiliated with the WHO criminals. Thank you for using your fabulous brain God gave you to help us all. I thank James Roguski, also. The public must be informed. Most have no clue.
I am so appreciative of your commitment to us in America and other countries! I wish I could send you a big check, but God determined I should be a teacher, and I was with Joy . Now “older” retired and no big checks😢 Praying some people will send those checks to you!!!! You need them..!!!!!! ❤️
I suspect a member state would have standing before the ICJ, if they met the bar on stating a claim -- after all, under international law the things you are identifying are "breaches" of a document to which parties are indirectly signatories through the UN Charter.
However, the chief purpose of a costly lawsuit would be to educate people about these ultra vires actions. And it is much cheaper to simply go directly to the people -- the court of public opinion is likely to be much more responsive than a disconnected technocratic court of law.
The goal is to reveal enough troubling issues to persuade enough countries to "just say no" to drugs under the new treaty. I submit the Gaza fiasco of UN workers engaged in warfare is another area where these institutions' trustworthiness is experiencing increasing doubt.
I am not sure anyone has standing, not even a government. Countries can dispute how well another follows WHO regs at the ICJ but not sure they can do so with WHO as the defendant. Remember immunity?
But I think that bringing these issues to officials in many countries highlights the underlying rot at the heart of the WHO proposals and will make nations hesitate to sign on.
That is the assumptions I am working on, John
It is the right assumption, Meryl. Educate these countries so they realize the consequences of being affiliated with the WHO criminals. Thank you for using your fabulous brain God gave you to help us all. I thank James Roguski, also. The public must be informed. Most have no clue.
I am so appreciative of your commitment to us in America and other countries! I wish I could send you a big check, but God determined I should be a teacher, and I was with Joy . Now “older” retired and no big checks😢 Praying some people will send those checks to you!!!! You need them..!!!!!! ❤️
I suspect a member state would have standing before the ICJ, if they met the bar on stating a claim -- after all, under international law the things you are identifying are "breaches" of a document to which parties are indirectly signatories through the UN Charter.
However, the chief purpose of a costly lawsuit would be to educate people about these ultra vires actions. And it is much cheaper to simply go directly to the people -- the court of public opinion is likely to be much more responsive than a disconnected technocratic court of law.
The goal is to reveal enough troubling issues to persuade enough countries to "just say no" to drugs under the new treaty. I submit the Gaza fiasco of UN workers engaged in warfare is another area where these institutions' trustworthiness is experiencing increasing doubt.