Russo-Ukrainian War - 2022 Edition - Part 6

[HideInLight]

Cotext matter:

 

[Major Boredom]

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/y9ytqi

This is what our local scum are supporting

 

[Wut]

What law are you relying on with that statement?

1958 Convention on the Law of the High Seas

And

1982 United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea

 

[Cosmik Debris]

Yeah big news blackout. Been for a while now. Russia been prepping their population for a major defeat
All the Russian Lover Scum popped up full time right before that started. And some new ones as well. Had been quiet for a while. Almost like they all received the same marching orders

I'm going to avoid the troll. They get bored when not fed.

 

[Howdy]

Major thread derails as well 1200 posts in. Here it's been derailed to drug smuggling on the high seas. Something significant is happening in the Russo-Ukrainian war.

Ukraine Interactive map - Ukraine Latest news on live map - liveuamap.com

Live Universal Awareness Map Liveuamap is a leading independent global news and information site dedicated to factual reporting of a variety of important topics including conflicts, human rights issues, protests, terrorism, weapons deployment, health matters, natural disasters, and weather...

liveuamap.com

Major areas of the Ukr without power or shortages after strikes on the grid this morning. One chopper shot down.

However, the derail came from ... where?

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

This is the longest 3 day war ever.

only your MSM brainwashing ever named a timeframe of 3 days since this war started

 

[sefeddt]

Damn Western regimes and their repressive clampdown on free speech.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1583795894042120192

 

[Grant]

Ukraine Interactive map - Ukraine Latest news on live map - liveuamap.com

Live Universal Awareness Map Liveuamap is a leading independent global news and information site dedicated to factual reporting of a variety of important topics including conflicts, human rights issues, protests, terrorism, weapons deployment, health matters, natural disasters, and weather...

liveuamap.com

Major areas of the Ukr without power or shortages after strikes on the grid this morning.

What was it glorious putin said about not targeting civilian infrastructure?

 

[Dave]

1958 Convention on the Law of the High Seas

And

1982 United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea

The same UNCLOS that the USA failed to ratify?

 

[Howdy]

Damn Western regimes and their repressive clampdown on free speech.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1583795894042120192

Honest question:

Since Siberia is in Russia, and she wants her men, do we call her a Russian lover scum? Or a victim?

 

[Major Boredom]

only your MSM brainwashing ever named a timeframe of 3 days since this war started

Six months, twenty-three lessons: What the world has learned from Russia’s war in Ukraine

Our experts break down how this conflict has transformed not only military operations and strategy, but also diplomacy, intelligence, national security, energy security, economic statecraft, and much more.

www.atlanticcouncil.org

"When it was first launched in the wee hours of February 24, the Kremlin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine was supposed to last just a few days and end with the quick capture of Kyiv."

 

[Major Boredom]

What was it glorious putin said about not targeting civilian infrastructure?

Just one thing he has continually lied about since day 1

 

[Wut]

The same UNCLOS that the USA failed to ratify?

Hence I used both laws. They did ratify the 1958 one which means they still have to abide by it. They have the same rules regarding interception and seizing of vessels.

 

[Dave]

Hence I used both laws. They did ratify the 1958 one which means they still have to abide by it. They have the same rules regarding interception and seizing of vessels.

The USA see it differently, UNCLOS 82 succeeded 58 in their view. US courts held that to be true in US vs Postal.

On the Legality and Policy Ramifications of High Seas Seizures of Foreign Merchant Vessels for Violating U.S. Sanctions

In its efforts to enforce economic sanctions against Iran and Venezuela, the United States is straining the boundaries of traditionally accepted state behavior in some of the world’s busiest shipping lanes. It is walking a tightrope.

www.lawfareblog.com

Globally, UNCLOS has subsumed the 1958 Convention as the international law of the sea, though it is unratified by the United States. In law of the sea disputes, the Supreme Court and multiple circuits hold that U.S. law incorporates UNCLOS only to the extent that it reflects customary international law. This leaves the 1958 Convention as controlling in U.S. courts. However, despite the U.S’s ratification of the 1958 Convention, courts considering it must still confront whether the relevant treaty provisions are “self-executing.” This distinction, which has perennially fuzzy edges, is instrumental to determining whether courts have jurisdiction to hear treaty law claims. Self-executing treaty provisions are those that can operate without implementing legislation. U.S. courts generally regard such provisions as equivalent to federal statutes when the treaty clearly authorizes executive action in “pursuance of its provisions” and where existing legislation is adequate to enforce the treaty provision. Provisions that are not self-executing may create international commitments but are not binding federal law absent associated implementing legislation. The vast majority of treaty provisions are non-self-executing.

U.S. courts maintain that their jurisdictional bounds are exclusively constitutional or statutory and that customary international law is insufficient to restrict their authority on the high seas absent Congress explicitly abdicating jurisdiction. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit tackled self-execution of 1958 Convention Article 6—curtailing jurisdiction over foreign vessels in international waters—in United States v. Postal, which involved a drug-runner seized in the southern Caribbean. The Postal court found Article 6 not to be self-executing and therefore that it could not restrict the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. More broadly, international law defenses to U.S. jurisdiction generally fail unless the court holds the treaty provision to be truly self-executing or the claimant can prove the court is statutorily precluded from exercising jurisdiction in their specific scenario. While courts tend to uphold the principle of restricting the extraterritorial application of U.S. law, they are willing to distinguish applications of the protective principle, granting U.S. courts high seas jurisdiction over offenses committed in violation of United States criminal law. That Postal and its progeny give the U.S. government remarkable latitude to justify extraterritorial jurisdiction on the high seas creates enormous friction with both the 1958 Convention and UNCLOS.

 

[Grant]

Not in international waters without the vessel's flag nation permission Cupcake

You are trying to quote law of international waters in defence if a regime who has shown nothing but contempt for international law.?
You have to be joking

 

[MiW]

Russian missile strikes leave estimated 1.5 million Ukrainians without electricity

VALENTYNA ROMANENKO – SATURDAY, 22 OCTOBER 2022, 14:50

www.pravda.com.ua

 

[MiW]

Occupiers order Kherson citizens to leave city and make it to Dnipro’s left bank

STANISLAV POHORILOV — SATURDAY, 22 OCTOBER 2022, 14:08

www.pravda.com.ua

 

[sefeddt]

Handled them too softly in my view.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1583675676812800001

 

[Wut]

The USA see it differently, UNCLOS 82 succeeded 58 in their view. US courts held that to be true in US vs Postal.

On the Legality and Policy Ramifications of High Seas Seizures of Foreign Merchant Vessels for Violating U.S. Sanctions

In its efforts to enforce economic sanctions against Iran and Venezuela, the United States is straining the boundaries of traditionally accepted state behavior in some of the world’s busiest shipping lanes. It is walking a tightrope.

www.lawfareblog.com

Globally, UNCLOS has subsumed the 1958 Convention as the international law of the sea, though it is unratified by the United States. In law of the sea disputes, the Supreme Court and multiple circuits hold that U.S. law incorporates UNCLOS only to the extent that it reflects customary international law. This leaves the 1958 Convention as controlling in U.S. courts. However, despite the U.S’s ratification of the 1958 Convention, courts considering it must still confront whether the relevant treaty provisions are “self-executing.” This distinction, which has perennially fuzzy edges, is instrumental to determining whether courts have jurisdiction to hear treaty law claims. Self-executing treaty provisions are those that can operate without implementing legislation. U.S. courts generally regard such provisions as equivalent to federal statutes when the treaty clearly authorizes executive action in “pursuance of its provisions” and where existing legislation is adequate to enforce the treaty provision. Provisions that are not self-executing may create international commitments but are not binding federal law absent associated implementing legislation. The vast majority of treaty provisions are non-self-executing.

U.S. courts maintain that their jurisdictional bounds are exclusively constitutional or statutory and that customary international law is insufficient to restrict their authority on the high seas absent Congress explicitly abdicating jurisdiction. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit tackled self-execution of 1958 Convention Article 6—curtailing jurisdiction over foreign vessels in international waters—in United States v. Postal, which involved a drug-runner seized in the southern Caribbean. The Postal court found Article 6 not to be self-executing and therefore that it could not restrict the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. More broadly, international law defenses to U.S. jurisdiction generally fail unless the court holds the treaty provision to be truly self-executing or the claimant can prove the court is statutorily precluded from exercising jurisdiction in their specific scenario. While courts tend to uphold the principle of restricting the extraterritorial application of U.S. law, they are willing to distinguish applications of the protective principle, granting U.S. courts high seas jurisdiction over offenses committed in violation of United States criminal law. That Postal and its progeny give the U.S. government remarkable latitude to justify extraterritorial jurisdiction on the high seas creates enormous friction with both the 1958 Convention and UNCLOS.

Still not applicable in any way in this case. Is it? That's why I asked Cupcake what grounds they would have to intercept it much less seize it? Someone photoshopping pirate eye patches on the crew, kilos of drugs headed to the US, dangerous cargo?

 

[Howdy]

Still not applicable in any way in this case. Is it? That's why I asked Cupcake what grounds they would have to intercept it much less seize it? Someone photoshopping pirate eye patches on the crew, kilos of drugs headed to the US, dangerous cargo?

Easy! The feels of certain folks who want to be badder than those they claim to despise.