3 ms·

While I don't think the US has the authority to warrant the sizing of another country's oil tanker, the US may believe they have justification. Accusation: Ve

by m348e912 10mo ago

While I don't think the US has the authority to warrant the sizing of another country's oil tanker, the US may believe they have justification. Accusation: Venezuela is using Nigeria as a means to launder sanctioned oil. https://x.com/0x2719/status/1998867882365825299?s=20 https://x.com/0x2719/status/1998867882365825299?s=20

cherryteastain 10mo ago
Domestic laws of a country do not constitute valid justification for seizing another country's vessels under international law.
- JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
  > Domestic laws of a country do not constitute valid justification for seizing another country's vessels under international law The great powers (China, Russia and America) have each, at this point, explicitly rejected this principle. More broadly, internationa law does contain broad exemptions for piracy.
  - Aloisius 10mo ago
    International law exempts piracy? That's somewhat contrary to my understanding, but fascinating if true. But if we're using that as a justification, are we admitting the US has turned pirate then?
    - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
      > International law exempts piracy UNCLOS provides that “all states have universal jurisdiction on the high seas to seize pirate ships and aircraft, or a ship or aircraft taken by piracy and under the control of pirates, and arrest the persons and seize the property on board” [1]. > if we're using that as a justification, are we admitting the US has turned pirate then? No, because the seizure was not “committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft” [2]. Under UNCLOS states can’t be pirates. (Again, this is academic. China has been blowing off UNCLOS judgements in the South China Sea for years.) [1] https://www.un.org/depts/los/piracy/piracy_legal_framework.htm https://www.un.org/depts/los/piracy/piracy_legal_framework.h... [2] https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unc...
- monerozcash 10mo ago
  This seizure was absolutely legal under the UNCLOS, the US unquestionably has valid justification under international law to seize this (and any other) stateless vessel.
monerozcash 10mo ago
Any US actions wrt Venezuela almost certainly have the backing of what the US (probably rightfully) considers to be the legitimate government of Venezuela.
- NoGravitas 10mo ago
  Meaning Juan Guaido?
basisword 10mo ago
Sanctioned by who? The president who thinks his tech companies shouldn't be subject to European laws when they operate in Europe believes completely separate countries have to abide by his rules when doing business?
SilverElfin 10mo ago
Even if they want to launder sanctioned oil, that is up to those two other countries. The US has no right to militarily intervene.
crest 10mo ago
In theory they gave the flag state a perfectly valid casus belli, but the flag state isn't in a position to take on the US navy. It would be funny if the flag states or the owners tried to seize US owned property in some involved jurisdiction as compensation.

cherryteastain 10mo ago

Domestic laws of a country do not constitute valid justification for seizing another country's vessels under international law.

JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
> Domestic laws of a country do not constitute valid justification for seizing another country's vessels under international law The great powers (China, Russia and America) have each, at this point, explicitly rejected this principle. More broadly, internationa law does contain broad exemptions for piracy.
- Aloisius 10mo ago
  International law exempts piracy? That's somewhat contrary to my understanding, but fascinating if true. But if we're using that as a justification, are we admitting the US has turned pirate then?
  - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
    > International law exempts piracy UNCLOS provides that “all states have universal jurisdiction on the high seas to seize pirate ships and aircraft, or a ship or aircraft taken by piracy and under the control of pirates, and arrest the persons and seize the property on board” [1]. > if we're using that as a justification, are we admitting the US has turned pirate then? No, because the seizure was not “committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft” [2]. Under UNCLOS states can’t be pirates. (Again, this is academic. China has been blowing off UNCLOS judgements in the South China Sea for years.) [1] https://www.un.org/depts/los/piracy/piracy_legal_framework.htm https://www.un.org/depts/los/piracy/piracy_legal_framework.h... [2] https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unc...
monerozcash 10mo ago
This seizure was absolutely legal under the UNCLOS, the US unquestionably has valid justification under international law to seize this (and any other) stateless vessel.

monerozcash 10mo ago

Any US actions wrt Venezuela almost certainly have the backing of what the US (probably rightfully) considers to be the legitimate government of Venezuela.

NoGravitas 10mo ago
Meaning Juan Guaido?

basisword 10mo ago

Sanctioned by who? The president who thinks his tech companies shouldn't be subject to European laws when they operate in Europe believes completely separate countries have to abide by his rules when doing business?

SilverElfin 10mo ago

Even if they want to launder sanctioned oil, that is up to those two other countries. The US has no right to militarily intervene.

crest 10mo ago

In theory they gave the flag state a perfectly valid casus belli, but the flag state isn't in a position to take on the US navy. It would be funny if the flag states or the owners tried to seize US owned property in some involved jurisdiction as compensation.