The combination of the UN and the ICJ does however make it entirely reasonable to describe it as illegal, and that was the point I was addressing in response to a post implying people picked something they see as immoral and "just claim it's illegal".

In this case the claim of illegality is backed up by a court the UK was one of the original proponents of, that the UK has presided over, that the UK was the first state to submit a case to. As such, whether or not the decision is enforceable it's quite a bit more than "just claiming it's illegal".

> The UN also is not the ultimate authority on international law. The countries subscribing to said international law are.

The countries subscribing to said international law voted 116 to 6.

> The countries subscribing to said international law voted 116 to 6.

Unless the 116 countries voting to uphold it are actually willing to do something about it, it's near completely meaningless.

Can we stop pretending that the UN has power over anything?

You declared an ultimate authority. I stated your ultimate authority's ruling. I was surprised you believed in international law.

Is any action enough to make it meaningful? Do they have to start a war? Win the war?