5 ms·

I don't think it's just benevolence. Territorial waters also doesn't mean what many think it means - unlike planes, ships have the almost-universally recognized

I don't think it's just benevolence. Territorial waters also doesn't mean what many think it means - unlike planes, ships have the almost-universally recognized right to cross territorial waters (innocent passage). But what's more relevant here are rules about straits - territorial waters that fully enclose a section of someone else's territorial waters. My understanding is that that is a big part of the reason why the two countries restrict their claim of territorial waters to leave a corridor of international waters: They want to avoid the area falling under the straits rules (transit passage), which would give Russia more rights than it has now inside the territorial waters.

lostlogin 10mo ago
> ships have the almost-universally recognized right to cross territorial waters (innocent passage). I’m far from a maritime law expert, but destroying cables doesn’t sound like innocent passage.
- yetihehe 10mo ago
  That's why they detained the ship...
  - lostlogin 10mo ago
    On re-reading the article I’m a bit confused. Damage was done in the waters of one country, detaining was done in the other. Why didn’t Russia attack in international waters?
    - deliciousturkey 10mo ago
      The ship was asked to move to territorial waters by Finnish authorities before detaining.
- LtWorf 10mo ago
  And destroying gasducts?
deliciousturkey 10mo ago
Yes, the right of passage through the strait would still clearly remain. This is already the case with Denmark and Sweden as these ships need to cross Öresund or Great Belt strait to reach the Atlantic. However, this act would, in my understanding, give much more power to Finland and Estonia to detain these ships, and charge the crew for the crimes they have committed. Right now there seems to be a loophole in the legislation that Russia is actively exploiting for hybrid warfare purposes. If the strait rules would give Russia more ways to cause harm, some other way of dissuading Russia from making these acts should be done. In general though, it feels stupid that we have to play by these rules, when the enemy makes a mockery of them and actively tries to exploit them to cause as much harm as possible. But that's the reality when bordering Russia.
- Hendrikto 10mo ago
  > In general though, it feels stupid that we have to play by these rules, when the enemy makes a mockery of them That is what separates civilized from uncivilized people, and it is a curse we have to bear unless we want to join the uncivilized.
  - sekai 10mo ago
    > That is what separates civilized from uncivilized people, and it is a curse we have to bear unless we want to join the uncivilized. If the Allies had committed to this thinking, they would have lost the war. And make no mistake, Europe is at war with Russia, just not a kinetic one.
    - sigmoid10 10mo ago
      There is a 1000+ km long front of active combat in Europe right now. A front where European shells and Russian ones are getting exchanged. Where F-16s fight Su-35s. And then we have things like the Russian cargo ship with nuclear materials that got sunk by a high-end torpedo. Just because shells aren't yet raining down on Berlin, it doesn't mean this war isn't kinetic.
petre 10mo ago
Innocent passage ≠ acts of negligence or sabotage. This sets an important precedent, that ships engaging in acts of sabotage could be be boarded, put under custody and their crews detained.
- LtWorf 10mo ago
  IF such sabotage was actually performed by that ship, otherwise it's just harassing civilians.
rasz 10mo ago
For one it would stop sanctioned ships dead cold. As it is russian lawyers are playing EU like a fiddle with nonsense arguments https://www.dailyfinland.fi/europe/46719/Sanctioned-Russian-tanker-cannot-be-confiscated-German-court https://www.dailyfinland.fi/europe/46719/Sanctioned-Russian-... "The Federal Fiscal Court (BFH) said there was "reasonable doubt as to the legality of the confiscation measures," as it was unclear whether the ship had had authorization to enter and leave the EU despite the sanctions, due to an exemption applicable in emergencies."

lostlogin 10mo ago

> ships have the almost-universally recognized right to cross territorial waters (innocent passage). I’m far from a maritime law expert, but destroying cables doesn’t sound like innocent passage.

yetihehe 10mo ago
That's why they detained the ship...
- lostlogin 10mo ago
  On re-reading the article I’m a bit confused. Damage was done in the waters of one country, detaining was done in the other. Why didn’t Russia attack in international waters?
  - deliciousturkey 10mo ago
    The ship was asked to move to territorial waters by Finnish authorities before detaining.
LtWorf 10mo ago
And destroying gasducts?

deliciousturkey 10mo ago

Yes, the right of passage through the strait would still clearly remain. This is already the case with Denmark and Sweden as these ships need to cross Öresund or Great Belt strait to reach the Atlantic. However, this act would, in my understanding, give much more power to Finland and Estonia to detain these ships, and charge the crew for the crimes they have committed. Right now there seems to be a loophole in the legislation that Russia is actively exploiting for hybrid warfare purposes. If the strait rules would give Russia more ways to cause harm, some other way of dissuading Russia from making these acts should be done. In general though, it feels stupid that we have to play by these rules, when the enemy makes a mockery of them and actively tries to exploit them to cause as much harm as possible. But that's the reality when bordering Russia.

Hendrikto 10mo ago
> In general though, it feels stupid that we have to play by these rules, when the enemy makes a mockery of them That is what separates civilized from uncivilized people, and it is a curse we have to bear unless we want to join the uncivilized.
- sekai 10mo ago
  > That is what separates civilized from uncivilized people, and it is a curse we have to bear unless we want to join the uncivilized. If the Allies had committed to this thinking, they would have lost the war. And make no mistake, Europe is at war with Russia, just not a kinetic one.
  - sigmoid10 10mo ago
    There is a 1000+ km long front of active combat in Europe right now. A front where European shells and Russian ones are getting exchanged. Where F-16s fight Su-35s. And then we have things like the Russian cargo ship with nuclear materials that got sunk by a high-end torpedo. Just because shells aren't yet raining down on Berlin, it doesn't mean this war isn't kinetic.

petre 10mo ago

Innocent passage ≠ acts of negligence or sabotage. This sets an important precedent, that ships engaging in acts of sabotage could be be boarded, put under custody and their crews detained.

LtWorf 10mo ago
IF such sabotage was actually performed by that ship, otherwise it's just harassing civilians.

rasz 10mo ago

For one it would stop sanctioned ships dead cold. As it is russian lawyers are playing EU like a fiddle with nonsense arguments https://www.dailyfinland.fi/europe/46719/Sanctioned-Russian-tanker-cannot-be-confiscated-German-court https://www.dailyfinland.fi/europe/46719/Sanctioned-Russian-... "The Federal Fiscal Court (BFH) said there was "reasonable doubt as to the legality of the confiscation measures," as it was unclear whether the ship had had authorization to enter and leave the EU despite the sanctions, due to an exemption applicable in emergencies."