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 …
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 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.