3 ms·

That doesn't really make sense to me. Just because international law allows something doesn't mean it's not illegal according to German or other national laws.

by bloak 2y ago

That doesn't really make sense to me. Just because international law allows something doesn't mean it's not illegal according to German or other national laws. In this case infrastructure located in international waters and owned by various entities in various countries, including Germany, I presume, was attacked. Isn't German law applicable to that situation regardless of what international law has to say?

impossiblefork 2y ago
If acts of war were criminal under national legislation then soldiers conducting them would be criminals, and you'd be able to stick them in ordinary prison. This is not in accordance with the Geneva convention. A legitimate war operation during an international conflict is legal.
- pjc50 2y ago
  Important detail is that Ukraine is not at war with Germany. Countries very much can and do arrest the soldiers of other countries when they're found committing criminal acts. Neutral countries also traditionally intern soldiers of belligerents who are found trying to bring the war into neutral territory. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior ; two French spies were jailed by New Zealand.
  - impossiblefork 2y ago
    Yes, you have to intern enemy soldiers that enter into the neutral country in order to preserve your neutrality. Spies are not soldiers, they are spies, and you can't quite do this (especially not in practice), but you can pretty much shoot them as you like, even if they've surrendered (and since New Zealand and France weren't at war it was simply treated as ordinary criminality). They basically don't have any rights under the laws of war. The fact that I suppose it was a partially Germany-owned pipeline probably places the attack in the same framework as interdiction of neutral shipping. I suppose it's really a proportionality thing then. Was the destruction of the pipeline proportionate-- so I suppose there really is a case, with the arrest warrant then, being legitimate. Since there were alternative avenues-- demanding that the pipeline be cut off, proportionality is obviously doubtful.

by bloak 2y ago

impossiblefork 2y ago

If acts of war were criminal under national legislation then soldiers conducting them would be criminals, and you'd be able to stick them in ordinary prison. This is not in accordance with the Geneva convention. A legitimate war operation during an international conflict is legal.

pjc50 2y ago
Important detail is that Ukraine is not at war with Germany. Countries very much can and do arrest the soldiers of other countries when they're found committing criminal acts. Neutral countries also traditionally intern soldiers of belligerents who are found trying to bring the war into neutral territory. e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior ; two French spies were jailed by New Zealand.
- impossiblefork 2y ago
  Yes, you have to intern enemy soldiers that enter into the neutral country in order to preserve your neutrality. Spies are not soldiers, they are spies, and you can't quite do this (especially not in practice), but you can pretty much shoot them as you like, even if they've surrendered (and since New Zealand and France weren't at war it was simply treated as ordinary criminality). They basically don't have any rights under the laws of war. The fact that I suppose it was a partially Germany-owned pipeline probably places the attack in the same framework as interdiction of neutral shipping. I suppose it's really a proportionality thing then. Was the destruction of the pipeline proportionate-- so I suppose there really is a case, with the arrest warrant then, being legitimate. Since there were alternative avenues-- demanding that the pipeline be cut off, proportionality is obviously doubtful.