6 ms·
The last boat used for this stunt was Chinese, this one is registered in the Cook Islands. This is already happening. There is no way out of the Baltic Sea wit
by wasmitnetzen 2y ago
The last boat used for this stunt was Chinese, this one is registered in the Cook Islands. This is already happening.
There is no way out of the Baltic Sea without crossing the territorial sea of either Sweden or Denmark. Countries have full jurisdiction in those, cutting cables on purpose is at least a criminal act, if not terrorism. There's no problem handling this, even if you're fully playing by the books.
Russia would then need to switch to ships running only to Kaliningrad, which makes it even more obvious that it's an act of war.
- matt-p 2y agoI agree it should be handled and if we can board the ship and arrest everyone inside international law it should be done. I just don't agree this is something worth breaking international law over.
- dagenleg 2y agoI don't think there are many penalties for breaking the international law. Clearly, in the environment where Europe's adversaries are flagrantly breaking it on the daily basis, keeping to it meticulously would be foolish and dangerous. Just like pacifism, abiding by the international law in this case will only serve to embolden the totalitarian regimes, which neither desire peace, nor obey the law.
- matt-p 2y agoAnd then you enable them to use the argument against you. They broke the law last time therefore it's fine for us to.
- dagenleg 2y agoWho cares? It's just words. It's better than getting attacked while being paralyzed with indecision.
- lxgr 2y agoYes, the UNCLOS is ultimately just words, just like the Geneva convention, a formal declaration of war, a country's nuclear doctrine etc. Words aren't as meaningless as you claim even at wartime.
- dagenleg 2y agoI think if you wanted to bring up meaningful words, those were not the best examples to give. In the recent years, somewhere amongst the endless nuclear threat screeching and the ignored ICC arrest warrants, they have lost a lot of meaning. The declaration of war is a pretty good example of that, actually, being an outdated and withered concept. I'm simply pointing out that words do not matter as much, willingness to do something, to respond, to defend yourself, that's what matters. I'm not ignoring the value of laws, and rules, and regulations, but they clearly are not an ironclad defense. Just like Article 5 isn't.
- GoblinSlayer 2y agoWhy declaration of war is outdated?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> Why declaration of war is outdated? Plot every declaration of war since WWII. Now plot every military conflict. Nobody declares war by declaring war, we declare war by bombing.
- eastbound 2y agoEvery nation uses novel words every time, to avoid parallels. In fact ambassadors have to research every historical speech when a president wants to coin a new term. It’s not rare we hear “He said […], a term not used since [last scuffle between countries]”, journalists do notice. US has Guantanamo and they don’t call them prisoners of wars (PoW). Russia has special military operations. Australia doesn’t keep their illegal immigrants in detention centers but in “administrative residences”. So declarations of war are very much not outdated, insofar as everyone _avoids_ those terms.
- lxgr 2y agoTrust is hard to earn and very easy to lose. The appropriate answer to somebody violating hard-won international laws and norms isn't to just also start violating them.
- scotty79 2y agoLaws are for participants who willingly obey them. If they don't they automatically shouldn't be covered by them. There might be separate subset of laws on how to treat them but they cannot be treated the same as conforming entities. You have freedom but if you do a crime your right to freedom is void. Now you have right to get punished.
- lxgr 2y agoNot sure what to call a rule that immediately stops applying to any involved party as soon as one violates it, but "law" isn't a word that comes to mind.
- scotty79 2y agoIt's called pragmatism. It's one level above the law for practical purposes. It dictates when to apply the law in the international setting.
- Sabinus 2y agoOur usual understanding of law has an enforcement mechanism of the nation on individuals, not voluntary agreements sovereign nations enforce on each other.
- riehwvfbk 2y agoBlow up gas pipeline: good! Cut a cable: terrorism!
- matt-p 2y agoB-but it's different we're the "good guys" and therefore it's fine when we break international law, it's only when "they" do it that it's bad.
- fnqi8ckfek 2y ago[dead]
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> Blow up gas pipeline: good! Cut a cable: terrorism! Straw men. The point is both have happened.
- riehwvfbk 2y agoWell then, maybe Russia is within its rights to punch some of these strawmen so that their heads fall off? Unilaterally claiming more territorial waters and boarding ships is cool and all. Having a Russian Navy destroyer follow one of these ships and greet the boarding party would also be kinda cool.
- lxgr 2y ago> There is no way out of the Baltic Sea without crossing the territorial sea of either Sweden or Denmark. Countries have full jurisdiction in those [...] I don't think it's as clear cut. Transit passage through straits is governed by special provisions in the UNCLOS; with a few exceptions, states can't just board vessels. What could further complicate matters here is if infrastructure of states A and B is damaged, but a vessel leaves the sea through a strait bordering states C and D. That's obviously only the theory, and it's unfortunately not like there is broad international consensus on matters of territoriality at sea at this point.
- fi358 2y agoFirst two sabotages were done by Chinese ships (which may have had russians on the board). This one was registered to Cook Islands.