The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.

Thursday, March 15, 2018

Pushing Back on Russia


For John, BLUFIn case you thought this poisoning in England was not a big deal, we have folks trying to make it a bigger deal than it is.  Nothing to see here; just move along.




This is from The Lawfire Blog, written by Duke Law Professor Charlie Dunlap, on 13 March 2018.

Here is the lede plus two:

Yesterday the British Prime Minister Theresa May stated that “it was highly likely that Russia was responsible” for the March 4th poisoning attack on a former Russian spy and his daughter in Salisbury, England.  May also said that in the absence of a “credible response” from Russia, the UK “will conclude that this action amounts to an unlawful use of force by the Russian State against the United Kingdom.”

According to a new essay by respected scholars Ryan Goodman and Alex Whiting, if an “unlawful use of force” is the conclusion, the two nations were, as a matter of law, in an “international armed conflict.”  My view is that international law should avoid construing events like this which are essentially criminal in nature as creating an armed conflict between two nuclear powers.

Prime Minister May was careful to use the words “use of force” and not “attack” in describing the incident.  Why would that be important?  Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter says that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nation.”  Obviously, a “use of force” violates the Charter.

In response to a comment on the article, saying "As terrible as these crimes were, do they really sound like enough to declare that 200 million people were in an armed conflict?"

To which Charlie replies:

You make excellent points, and I'm not dismissing the seriousness of the actions, but at the end of the day, I can't agree with you. The fact of the matter is that as bad as it is that three people were injured, a state of armed conflict between two nuclear powers carries more potential for harm. The UK can do lots of things to counter and punish Russia without being in an armed conflict with it.
So, there you have it.  Serious things happening, but with a little statesmanship we can avoid armed conflict between nuclear armed nations.

Regards  —  Cliff
-, Wed 3.0

No comments: