Vanhasen ja Stubbin mutu-lausunnot tapahtuneesta eivät paranna Suomen mainetta ulkomailla. Olisi kannattanut ensiksi kilauttaa kaverille, eli Merenkulkulaitoksen asiantuntijoille. Kansainväliset lait ovat siellä paremmin tiedossa. Minkään maan hallituksella ei ole valtuuksia kirjoitella kansainvälisiä lakeja uusiksi tai antaa niiden vastaisia lausuntoja.
Jos Vanhanen ei ymmärrä alla olevaa tekstiä niin on hyvä ja kysyy paremmin englantia ymmärtävältä Stubbilta.
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994
SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT
Neutral merchant vessels
67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:
(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;
(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
(c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;
(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;
(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or
(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.
NOTE: the San Remo Manual is not a treaty, but considered by the ICRC to be reflective of customary law. Also, on piracy: the definition of piracy under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, section 101, is clear that piracy can only occur where there are “illegal acts of violence or detention” that are “committed for private ends.” Israeli actions were legal under the law of armed conflict (as evidenced by the San Remo Manual) and in any event, were not committed for private ends. Anyone using the term piracy to describe the Israeli action is clearly not aware of international law on the subject.
Jos Vanhanen ei ymmärrä alla olevaa tekstiä niin on hyvä ja kysyy paremmin englantia ymmärtävältä Stubbilta.
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994
SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT
Neutral merchant vessels
67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:
(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;
(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
(c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;
(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;
(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or
(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.
NOTE: the San Remo Manual is not a treaty, but considered by the ICRC to be reflective of customary law. Also, on piracy: the definition of piracy under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, section 101, is clear that piracy can only occur where there are “illegal acts of violence or detention” that are “committed for private ends.” Israeli actions were legal under the law of armed conflict (as evidenced by the San Remo Manual) and in any event, were not committed for private ends. Anyone using the term piracy to describe the Israeli action is clearly not aware of international law on the subject.
Vastaukset 1
Vanhimmat
Älä laske roistoja takapihallesi. Järkevää toimintaa Israelilasilta!
Meinaatko, että suomi laskis kolera-altaalle asti?