User:Swood100/sandbox

Legality of third party countermeasures
Another argument against the RDI analysis concerns the right in international law of third party states, such as EU countries, to apply countermeasures at all. As a result of significant risks of abuse associated with the use of third-party countermeasures, and strong opposition in the International Law Commission during the drafting of the ARSIWA, "The ARSIWA do not directly address whether non-injured states invoking the responsibility of a breaching state...can take countermeasures." However, though this is disputed by some, it is widely believed that even if it is not expressly sanctioned in the ARSIWA, a rule has emerged under customary international law entitling third party states to apply countermeasures to enforce compliance with erga omnes ("owed to the international community as a whole") obligations. Once such a rule emerges, a war of aggression would violate an erga omnes obligation, giving third party states such rights.

Some analysts believe that since Russia defied the International Court of Justice (ICJ) order that the "Russian Federation shall immediately suspend the military operations that it commenced on 24 February 2022 in the territory of Ukraine," and also defied a U.N. General Assembly emergency resolution condemning its invasion and demanding immediate withdrawal, therefore third-party states are entitled for those reasons to take countermeasures in order to bring Russia into international compliance. Others respond that neither of these is an authoritative and conclusive determination. The ICJ ruling, it is argued, was preliminary. Furthermore, if General Assembly resolutions can substitute for Security Council decisions does that mean that the many General Assembly resolutions declaring Israel to be an international outlaw are sufficient to authorize states to ignore Israel's rights with impunity under international law?