The irony of the Russian government citing legal protections while at the same time breaking international law
If someone robs a bank the bank can’t unilaterally confiscate their money if they had an account with the bank.
it's called setting-off
Are you sure this is true, or are you just making it up?
It sounds snarky but it's a really serious question. Are banks definitely obligated to continue to operate the accounts of someone who has committed a crime against them? Are they not allowed to block the account pending legal process?
So far this thread is devoid of any factual evidence of what banks can and cannot do with your money, so I give up. Hopefully the posters will consider backing up claims with citations in the future
>"It sounds snarky but it's a really serious question. Are banks definitely obligated to continue to operate the accounts of someone who has committed a crime against them? Are they not allowed to block the account pending legal process?"
You're essentially doing the same thing by asserting that banks do have the right to seize account holders' funds and then expecting evidence to the contrary.
There is a big difference between providing service - and suspending it for whatever reasons they stipulate - and literally just confiscating the account holder's money. I'm certain US Banking laws prohibit banks from doing this. I don't have a citation for you, but you can go digging if you need one.
But here's a related concept that sheds some light on my stance. There are all sorts of unclaimed and lost property laws across the US where people have left money in bank accounts that have lapsed. Those people are still entitled to withdraw their money. The bank does not have the right to just take it. Even after a few decades, people can still claim the account funds. If no claim is ever made, I believe that money goes to the government's general fund - depending on the state.
Banks have a wide range of reasons they can freeze an account for.
Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter says "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" but is that enforceable?
With respect to the UN charter, it's enforceable in the sense that any international regulation is: if you care enough you can get your guns and shoot the other guy if he doesn't follow the regulation. But otherwise, no.
The comment I was responding to was claiming they were breaking international law and my hope was that there is an avenue to enforce that in the long term.
The lawyers answer is relevant here: It depends.
Is the illegal attacker the US or a major NATO partner? Nothing much happens.
Is it an attack between third-world-countries? Noone really cares.
Is the attacker a major opponent of "the West"? Well, we're seeing this play out right now.
Yes, ultimately by states taking action under Article 51 of the Charter, if all else fails.
EDIT: But, while the Security Council veto Russia wields can block the main UN enforcement mechanism, there has been a General Assembly fallback since 1950 via the “Uniting for Peace” process; while the UNGA has acted using this process already in the crisis without explicitly calling for enforcement action, there is nothing preventing it from revisiting it with stronger terms.
Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression
Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Article 40
In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures.
Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
The current ICJ court case is about the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which was signed and ratified by both parties. If that is proven, that is the law they are breaking.