Posted on 05/29/2014 10:41:34 PM PDT by Freelance Warrior
It seems you don’t know the difference between amateur and professional. This is sad. Sorry, lad, your legal advices won’t be bought.
“It seems you don’t know the difference between amateur and professional. This is sad. Sorry, lad, your legal advices won’t be bought.”
So now you are claiming the attorneys-at-law and jurists with arguably the world’s leading expertise in international law and who authored the Pact for Peace 1928 and the Budapest Articles of Interpretation 1934 for the Pact of Paris in the Conference of the International Law Association are amateurs when it comes to international law, and then you want us to take your comments sedriously. Yeah, right....
Nope. I'm speaking solely about your competence in the matter whether France and/or its shipbuilders are liable for paying damages and fines should France break the Mistral contract. Frankly, I doubt you have read the contract itself.
“Nope. I’m speaking solely about your competence in the matter whether France and/or its shipbuilders are liable for paying damages and fines should France break the Mistral contract. Frankly, I doubt you have read the contract itself.”
No, you say you are falsely claiming that you are “speaking solely about your competence in the matter,” but in reality you are denying the competence of the lawyers and jurists who interpreted the Paris Peace Pact or Kellogg-Briand Treaty, who set forth how the international law operated to permit states to embargo the delivery of war material and other goods and services to an aggressor state under government acts and orders without consequence to neutrality or other obligations. This doctrine is akin to the “force majeure” suspension during a belligerent’s hostilities or outright termination by written notice due to hostilities. The terms and conditions in a contract relating to the application of force majeure are unnecessary when the Paris Peace Pact is invoked to embargo war material and other goods and service in trade with an aggressor who is in violation of the Paris peace Pact or kellogg-briand Treaty, with or without the U.N. Security Council. In other words, the authority and obligations of the international treaty in regards to aggressor states trumps any and all possible contracts and their terms and conditions. This is how and why the assets of belligerent states may be and typically are seized and in some cases converted to use by the opponent belligerent.
Libya purchased C-130 Hercules military transport aircraft, which then were seized by the U.S. Government and sat unused for many years under such doctrines. The French Mistral contract would be subject to the same type of sovereign authorities as any force majeure situation in regard to a party who is a wartime belligerent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.