The politics around a decision like this are fascinating. I assume they've already paid in part or in full for the launch, and regardless, they did R&D on a satellite which is itself an asset that is now difficult to return to the owner!
The reason why they can't reach the rector of the MAEU is because he might have been arrested or is in hiding (https://www.myanmar-now.org/en/news/soldiers-raid-aerospace-...).
So, all in all, Japan is being careful and the situation in Myanmar is "undetermined". I think it is questionable where the "spying concern" is coming from, aside from being clickbait.
>Officials at JAXA could not be reached for comment. MAEU did not respond to calls seeking comment, nor did a spokesman for Myanmar’s junta.
It could be used for spying, because it's a satellite with cameras. If it has the capabilities to be used for spying is unclear, all the data would go through Japan anyway. Japan does not want to comment on it, persons responsible at MAEU are in prison or in hiding and the junta would probably lie anyway.
I dare you to find a quote by anyone familiar with the satellite citing military use.
Nice bit of goal post rearrangement there, given an explicit direct quote in the article stating the satellite could have military applications. On what basis do you assert that Human Rights Watch are not capable of assessing the satellites capabilities and possible uses?
How do you get "the satellite could have military applications" from "The satellite was not designed for that"?
>On what basis do you assert that Human Rights Watch are not capable of assessing the satellites capabilities and possible uses?
You mean aside from "We won’t get involved in anything that has to do with the military. The satellite was not designed for that"? Why do you think the HRW has any capability to assess the possible applications of a satellite? Nothing on the HRW website either...
https://eng.globalaffairs.ru/articles/the-soviet-union-and-t...
I completely understand why they're doing this, but it's tough to see how it's legal.
If that's not the case, or if the Diet passes a new law that protects their countrymen in this dispute, then yeah it becomes the type of conflict you describe.
It's supposed to have seven judges, a minimum of three judges are required to issue rulings, but since 2019 there are only two judges left [0]
So any ruling the WTO main body makes, like for example declaring US tariffs on China illegal [1], only needs to be appealed to be stuck in procedural limbo, which is exactly what ended up happening with the WTO ruling on US tariffs [2]
[0] https://www.dw.com/en/wto-judge-blockage-could-prove-the-beg...
[1] https://apnews.com/article/global-trade-china-archive-donald...
[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-26/u-s-appea...
This situation is an example of what they mean by that.
Would you really think to yourself "Well the contract doesn't say I can't do this"?...
Mistral class helicopter carrier, payed by Russia, built in France, delivered to Egypt instead due to the War in Donbass. France had to compensate Russia.