“We also do not accept any reading of this resolution or related documents that would suggest that States have particular extraterritorial obligations arising from any concept of a “right to food,” which we do not recognize and has no definition in international law.”
I imagine this is the part they really object to. Real “Fuck you, I’ve got mine.” energy.
Soulg@ani.social 5 weeks ago
They didn’t say it wasn’t a no vote, they said it wasn’t a veto
Kissaki@feddit.org 5 weeks ago
Could the US have vetoed the whole process, and no vote would have taken place? Or what does this differentiation mean?
pfried@reddthat.com 5 weeks ago
The person I was replying to said that the US vetoed the Resolution. I pointed out that it did not and cannot veto the Resolution. It passed.