3 ms·

There is a pretty big philosophical difference between a Canadian private citizen taking their own equipment to Ukraine and a Canadian soldier follows orders in

There is a pretty big philosophical difference between a Canadian private citizen taking their own equipment to Ukraine and a Canadian soldier follows orders into Ukraine. Obviously the real world has more complexity than that. "Complain about it" could mean "We know about your tax incentives driving your citizens to fight us and we want you to end that program" but is more likely to mean "We want you to police your internal borders and prevent your citizens from traveling to Europe"

chii 5y ago
> a pretty big philosophical difference between a Canadian private citizen taking their own equipment to Ukraine and a Canadian soldier follows orders into Ukraine. and a legal quagmire. I wonder if a canadian citizen who murders someone overseas can be tried for such in canada (when they return). Because if they can be, then going overseas to participate in a war can be legally problematic, esp. unauthorized by the canadian gov't. But if this is seen as legal today, then it sets a bad precedence for private citizens going overseas to commit murder!
- hansvm 5y ago
  Most laws apply to people within the territory of a country, not to citizens of that country wherever they may be, and extradition typically is used when the law was broken in some country and the offender fled, not when the offense was committed elsewhere. For what it's worth, I think the counter-examples are a worrying trend. Is there a good reason why any country willing to claim you as a citizen should have a right to police you wherever you are in the world? In context, if Russia decided that all current Ukrainians were Russian citizens should they be allowed to continue the invasion (which at that point would just be ordinary police work quelling an internal rebellion)?
  - shuntress 5y ago
    I think the key factor here is individual consent. Russia cannot just declare that every person is a Russian citizen and therefor subject to Russian laws. (I mean... they can but it would obviously be in bad faith) But it does make sense that people who themselves claim and hold Russian citizenship be subject to Russian laws and that if they do not wish to be so, they renounce their citizenship.
    - hansvm 5y ago
      One might hope that consent would be the defining feature, but that's not how citizenship currently works. People become accidental citizens all the time, and the process for undoing the harm that causes is often lengthy and expensive.
- shuntress 5y ago
  > But if this is seen as legal today, then it sets a bad precedence for private citizens going overseas to commit murder! I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Do you mean that subjecting people to the laws of the jurisdiction in which they claim residence regardless of where their actions take place would be "bad precedence"? In the case where an individual who claims residence in Jurisdiction A (where murder is illegal) travels to and commits murder in Jurisdiction B (where murder is illegal). Clearly some form of "double jeopardy" would be bad and odd cases with conflicting laws can get complex. But, overall, the notation that you abide by all laws of the land in which you claim citizenship as well as the land in which you currently physically occupy seems to be a "good precedence".

chii 5y ago

> a pretty big philosophical difference between a Canadian private citizen taking their own equipment to Ukraine and a Canadian soldier follows orders into Ukraine. and a legal quagmire. I wonder if a canadian citizen who murders someone overseas can be tried for such in canada (when they return). Because if they can be, then going overseas to participate in a war can be legally problematic, esp. unauthorized by the canadian gov't. But if this is seen as legal today, then it sets a bad precedence for private citizens going overseas to commit murder!

hansvm 5y ago
Most laws apply to people within the territory of a country, not to citizens of that country wherever they may be, and extradition typically is used when the law was broken in some country and the offender fled, not when the offense was committed elsewhere. For what it's worth, I think the counter-examples are a worrying trend. Is there a good reason why any country willing to claim you as a citizen should have a right to police you wherever you are in the world? In context, if Russia decided that all current Ukrainians were Russian citizens should they be allowed to continue the invasion (which at that point would just be ordinary police work quelling an internal rebellion)?
- shuntress 5y ago
  I think the key factor here is individual consent. Russia cannot just declare that every person is a Russian citizen and therefor subject to Russian laws. (I mean... they can but it would obviously be in bad faith) But it does make sense that people who themselves claim and hold Russian citizenship be subject to Russian laws and that if they do not wish to be so, they renounce their citizenship.
  - hansvm 5y ago
    One might hope that consent would be the defining feature, but that's not how citizenship currently works. People become accidental citizens all the time, and the process for undoing the harm that causes is often lengthy and expensive.
shuntress 5y ago
> But if this is seen as legal today, then it sets a bad precedence for private citizens going overseas to commit murder! I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Do you mean that subjecting people to the laws of the jurisdiction in which they claim residence regardless of where their actions take place would be "bad precedence"? In the case where an individual who claims residence in Jurisdiction A (where murder is illegal) travels to and commits murder in Jurisdiction B (where murder is illegal). Clearly some form of "double jeopardy" would be bad and odd cases with conflicting laws can get complex. But, overall, the notation that you abide by all laws of the land in which you claim citizenship as well as the land in which you currently physically occupy seems to be a "good precedence".