Hacker News Reader

Comment by wasmitnetzen | Hacker News Reader

The last boat used for this stunt was Chinese, this one is registered in the Cook Islands. This is already happening.

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.

View on HN

> 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 [...]

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 agree it should be handled and if we can board the ship and arrest everyone inside international law it should be done.

I just don't agree this is something worth breaking international law over.

I don't think there are many penalties for breaking the international law. Clearly, in the environment where Europe's adversaries are flagrantly breaking it on the daily basis, keeping to it meticulously would be foolish and dangerous.

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.

And then you enable them to use the argument against you.

They broke the law last time therefore it's fine for us to.

Who cares? It's just words. It's better than getting attacked while being paralyzed with indecision.

Yes, the UNCLOS is ultimately just words, just like the Geneva convention, a formal declaration of war, a country's nuclear doctrine etc.

Words aren't as meaningless as you claim even at wartime.

I think if you wanted to bring up meaningful words, those were not the best examples to give. In the recent years, somewhere amongst the endless nuclear threat screeching and the ignored ICC arrest warrants, they have lost a lot of meaning. The declaration of war is a pretty good example of that, actually, being an outdated and withered concept.

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.

Why declaration of war is outdated?

> Why declaration of war is outdated?

Plot every declaration of war since WWII. Now plot every military conflict. Nobody declares war by declaring war, we declare war by bombing.

Every nation uses novel words every time, to avoid parallels. In fact ambassadors have to research every historical speech when a president wants to coin a new term. It’s not rare we hear “He said […], a term not used since [last scuffle between countries]”, journalists do notice.

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.

> 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 ultimately just words, just like the Geneva convention, a formal declaration of war, a country's nuclear doctrine

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.

There are ways of responding to some UNCLOS violations while continuing to adhere to it, e.g. the US's FONOPs.

Just because some states are violating it doesn't mean that we should throw the entire thing overboard entirely.

> ways of responding to some UNCLOS violations while continuing to adhere to it

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.

Trust is hard to earn and very easy to lose. The appropriate answer to somebody violating hard-won international laws and norms isn't to just also start violating them.

Laws are for participants who willingly obey them. If they don't they automatically shouldn't be covered by them. There might be separate subset of laws on how to treat them but they cannot be treated the same as conforming entities.

You have freedom but if you do a crime your right to freedom is void. Now you have right to get punished.

Not sure what to call a rule that immediately stops applying to any involved party as soon as one violates it, but "law" isn't a word that comes to mind.

It's called pragmatism. It's one level above the law for practical purposes. It dictates when to apply the law in the international setting.

Our usual understanding of law has an enforcement mechanism of the nation on individuals, not voluntary agreements sovereign nations enforce on each other.

First two sabotages were done by Chinese ships (which may have had russians on the board). This one was registered to Cook Islands.

Blow up gas pipeline: good! Cut a cable: terrorism!

B-but it's different we're the "good guys" and therefore it's fine when we break international law, it's only when "they" do it that it's bad.

> Blow up gas pipeline: good! Cut a cable: terrorism!

Straw men. The point is both have happened.

Well then, maybe Russia is within its rights to punch some of these strawmen so that their heads fall off?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com