It's a lovely theory but in practice you have to have a rule that says we can board any ship we feel like and that's super problematic.
There is no way out of the Baltic Sea without crossing the territorial sea of either Sweden or Denmark. Countries have full jurisdiction in those, cutting cables on purpose is at least a criminal act, if not terrorism. There's no problem handling this, even if you're fully playing by the books.
Russia would then need to switch to ships running only to Kaliningrad, which makes it even more obvious that it's an act of war.
I don't think it's as clear cut. Transit passage through straits is governed by special provisions in the UNCLOS; with a few exceptions, states can't just board vessels.
What could further complicate matters here is if infrastructure of states A and B is damaged, but a vessel leaves the sea through a strait bordering states C and D.
That's obviously only the theory, and it's unfortunately not like there is broad international consensus on matters of territoriality at sea at this point.
I just don't agree this is something worth breaking international law over.
Just like pacifism, abiding by the international law in this case will only serve to embolden the totalitarian regimes, which neither desire peace, nor obey the law.
They broke the law last time therefore it's fine for us to.
Words aren't as meaningless as you claim even at wartime.
I'm simply pointing out that words do not matter as much, willingness to do something, to respond, to defend yourself, that's what matters. I'm not ignoring the value of laws, and rules, and regulations, but they clearly are not an ironclad defense. Just like Article 5 isn't.
Plot every declaration of war since WWII. Now plot every military conflict. Nobody declares war by declaring war, we declare war by bombing.
US has Guantanamo and they don’t call them prisoners of wars (PoW). Russia has special military operations. Australia doesn’t keep their illegal immigrants in detention centers but in “administrative residences”.
So declarations of war are very much not outdated, insofar as everyone _avoids_ those terms.
One, sure, declarations of war aren’t academically outdated. By that measure neither are colonialism or chattel slavery, which are also avoided in modern speechwriting.
Two, we absolutely say we’re going to war with each other. We just don’t formally declare it. Declarations of war are obsolete, I’d be hard pressed to find anyone serious in government or international relations who claims otherwise.
UNCLOS is being ignored by China. The Geneva Conventions have been ignored by every current, former and emerging superpower, as well as several regional powers--again, without consequence. Nobody declares war. And Putin has been amending his nuclear doctrine by the hour, often with false starts.
Would I prefer these were law? Absolutely. Must I blind myself to the fact that they aren't? No.
Just because some states are violating it doesn't mean that we should throw the entire thing overboard entirely.
Sure. It's still, ultimately, a unilateraly rewriting of the terms. Something states can do in international law that individuals can't in a nation with the rule of law.
> because some states are violating it doesn't mean that we should throw the entire thing overboard entirely
Nobody is suggesting that. My point is we should be more open to such rewritings given they're commonly taking place. It doesn't make sense for Europe to treat UNCLOS as binding law when Russia, China and hell America treat is as nice-to-have guidelines.
International agreements were treated as law in the post-WWII era. That era ended some time after the fall of the Soviet Union. Slowly. Then suddenly.
They're now closer to LOIs. Some countries are realising this quickly. Others more slowly.
You have freedom but if you do a crime your right to freedom is void. Now you have right to get punished.
Straw men. The point is both have happened.
Unilaterally claiming more territorial waters and boarding ships is cool and all. Having a Russian Navy destroyer follow one of these ships and greet the boarding party would also be kinda cool.
Beijing has no interest in this. If anything, it has an interest in becoming one of Russia’s sole buyers.
> you have to have a rule that says we can board any ship we feel like and that's super problematic
Why? China is literally doing this right now outside its territorial waters. It’s fine. America would too, if foreign trawlers started cutting its lines. Again, if one person is playing by restrictions everyone else has already abandoned, it’s not difficult to conclude who’s the sucker at the table.
> Beijing has no interest in this.
The first cable and gas pipe sabotages using the anchor dragging method in the Baltic Sea in 2023 and 2024 were done by Chinese ships:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newnew_Polar_Bear
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yi_Peng_3
So obviously Beijing in already into this on the Russian side.
Classic American view point. Win at all costs, ignore the rules yourself but use another countries lack of adherence as an excuse to invade/bomb them.
You really think this is how we get a peaceful and civilised world order? You think this builds trust? Moral leadership? Long term reputation? Relationships?
Ridiculous. Sorry to be controversial but breaking international law should be avoided at almost any cost.
I guess one man's "sucker at the table" is another man's "gentleman who plays by the rules, and can be trusted"
My entire point is this is already the status quo. Nobody—other than Europe—is following the post-WWII rules anymore. There is a new set of conventions being de facto agreed to, and they will be set by the players actually at the table.
No, if your point is reasonable, it still doesn’t apply when dealing with a psychopath. Who TF cares about moral superiority in the face of an existential threat?
If moral superiority is so important, let Putin lead with it.