A court ruling could oblige a UK government to review its dealings with the regime responsible, rather than simply take a private politically convenient decision to keep a low profile and ignore some appalling atrocities.
I'm thinking Daniel has done us a disservice by presenting a complex question as a simple either / or.
The further question then has to be, why? For all the good intentions and honest principles, the instincts of politicians are to hoard power and disperse responsibility. Is this argument just a diversion?
The argument for targeted sanctions is well made. But, perhaps equally with international trade sanctions, where is the evidence of targeted sanctions resolving anything?
Wouldn't micro-sanctions be just as likely to be evaded and by-passed and subject to racketeering, while being much harder to police?
On the other hand, whether a regime is committing genocide is a matter of act, not political judgement. It is therefore a very suitable question for a British court.
The UK committed to it several years back, proudly instituted by a Conservative administration. We've upheld it ever since with no significant ideas that it was a bad idea in principle nor a bad ratio in practice.
I think the government has cynically timed its shabby reneging on its own commitment to developing communities round the world at a time when everyone's attention is distracted by the pandemic. Shameful behaviour.
This is all wrong. If we have committed to 0.7% of GDP, which we have, then we should stick to it. Of course the amount in currency will decrease if GDP shrinks but we still have 99.3% of what we have produced.
Right now it looks like a badge rather than a commitment.
If 0.7% is too much, then we should revise to 0.6% or 0.5% or whatever - I'm fine with whatever figure is agreed - but then the principle is the same - whatever we commit to we commit to.
What's the point of having our own foreign policies if even we don't know what they are?
Self-driving cars are impossible in the UK unless you sterilise lots of urban road lanes and motorway lanes for them and them alone and trap them within it.
Humans driving vehicles can barely keep our road systems functioning, they would be immediately gridlocked by AV's.
If we want to reduce pollution and improve road safety, there are more effective, more direct, more immediate ways of doing it.
The UN!?!? Seriously? The UN is a cosy club in which dictators, autocrats, genociders and terrorists get a democratic vote in how the free world behaves itself.
A well constructed and powerful article. We need to be realistic and accept that there are regimes and ideologies which would happily destroy our own civilisation and eliminate all the democratic and western virtues which we live by.
Regimes like Iran's should be isolated.
This section of Anthony's article was also put forward by Tim Harford on his Radio 4 More Or Less programme a few weeks back. Both Tim and the programme are renowned for statistical accuracy. It really does appear that we count a closed school as a negative on our GDP whereas most countries do not.
We'd save a lot more money if Council meetings followed the timetable of the Olympics.