All right, Alexander, let's talk about the United Nations Security Council resolution.

And let's start with the big question.

Binding or not binding?

And I guess the follow-up question, which I think is perhaps the most important aspect to this resolution, can it be enforced if it's considered binding?

What are your thoughts?

If you ask a question like that to a lawyer, especially an international lawyer, they will probably, you know, provide you with a rather long answer to a very simple question.

Is it binding or not?

Well, I'm going to cut straight to the point.

I think it's binding.

And I think in the end, the great majority, in fact, the overwhelming

majority of international lawyers would say it was binding. The United States, of course,

is pretending that it's not binding. But go to the text of the resolution. It's very short,

by the way. It's a very short, very clear resolution drawn up by Algeria.

And it says that the United Nations Security Council demands an immediate ceasefire.

Now, there are three levels of, you know, three levels that, of language that a resolution of this

kind might use. One is the Security Council calls for a immediate ceasefire. Now, that would

not be binding because it's a request. But it doesn't say

calls, it says demands. The strongest possible language that it might use is the Security Council

orders an immediate ceasefire. Well, that isn't a word that is, as far as I know, often used anyway, in Security Council resolutions. Demands looks to me like equivalent to a order. It says this is what the Security Council insists must

happen. And given that the Security Council is authorised in international law to make these

kind of determinations and that legal security council resolutions that, you know, require a party to do something, are binding

under international law. I would say unequivocally, personally, that this is a binding resolution.

...