On his first trip to Cuba during his third term in office, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva called the embargo imposed by the United States on the island "illegal" and denounced the island's inclusion on the list of state sponsors of terrorism.
How does this embargo work? Is it that the US is not trading with Cuba or are they blocking other countries from trading with Cuba as well?
They are blocking others from trading based on threats to cease or reduce trading with the other nation. That isn’t illegal at all.
Note I do not support the embargo as it is pointlessly cruel at this point.
The UN has stated it is against international law and the UN charter, and votes to condemn it every year. Usually only the US and Israel vote against it.
https://www.un.org/en/ga/62/plenary/cuba/bkg.shtml
https://press.un.org/en/2022/ga12465.doc.htm
No they do not declare it to be illegal and in fact outright state that the UN is not interfering in affairs between states.
Try reading your own sources without a bias for what it contains as they make it very clear. There are no laws requiring member nations to trade with one another.
???
…
To reiterate: in conformity with their obligations under the Charter of the United Nations and international law
I’m not aware of any way to read that that doesn’t involve concluding that the US’ actions are outside the law.
In any case I am not interested in further arguing the point. The action is nearly universally condemned and abhorrent - the international “legality” is really not an important point whatsoever and changes little since the UN has little or no power over the US.
Try actually going to the report in question for your first link as your summary misses important parts:
“1. Takes note of the report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of resolution 60/12;1 2. Reiterates its call upon all States to refrain from promulgating and applying laws and measures of the kind referred to in the preamble to the present resolution, in conformity with their obligations under the Charter of the United Nations and international law, which, inter alia, reaffirm the freedom of trade and navigation; 3. Once again urges States that have and continue to apply such laws and measures to take the necessary steps to repeal or invalidate them as soon as possible in accordance with their legal regime; 4. Requests the Secretary-General, in consultation with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations system, to prepare a report on the implementation of the present resolution in the light of the purposes and principles of the Charter and international law and to submit it to the General Assembly at its sixty-second session; 5. Decides to include in the provisional agenda of its sixty-second session the item entitled “Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba”
You’ll note they do not declare the embargo anything but suggest/request that the secretary general do things because the preparers believe these acts violate laws.
In addition “Reaffirming, among other principles, the sovereign equality of States, non-intervention and non-interference in their internal affairs and freedom of international trade and navigation, which are also enshrined in many international legal instruments”, means that they recognize the right of the US to not trade with Cuba.
You misunderstood your reports because you did not click through to the full version. The summary you linked to in your first link has the full report.
Your second link is again a request representing opinions. It is not a declaration by the UN that the embargo is illegal.
If every state except two in a supposedly democratic body made and controlled entirely by said states is of the opinion that something is illegal according to that body’s own laws, and have voted upon such language every year consecutively and similarly unanimously for decades… then is it not? And if not, does it matter?
Again though the UN could enthusiastically support it and it would still be every bit inexcusable. There is no further value to discussing whether it is “legal” or not.
Your initial claim that I responded to was that the UN declared it was illegal. I am correcting your misunderstanding on that regard because despite your claims they never have declared it illegal.