Skip to comments.Mistral Deal in Doubt: France either delivers warships or give Moscow refund, says Russian official
Posted on 12/22/2014 3:25:51 AM PST by WhiskeyX
Russia's Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov has told Interfax that France must decide by the end of the year if it will deliver two mistral class warships or give Moscow a refund. He also reportedly said that the second option of a refund "might even be preferable."
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
What to do with it? Maybe they could both be adopted into NATO dedicated ships with a multinational crew. Even the landlocked European members like the Czech Republic could provide crew members. Then we could all spread the cost of acquiring them from France.
There are a number of countries that want those warships, but they need the money to pay for them.
Ukraine might make use of them, but they’ll have to pass the hat to pay for them.
The French do need to return the Russian’s money or deliver the ships, as they are not at war.
Pay them back. . . in rubles. They paid “x” rubles for the ships, give them “x” rubles back. The fact that a ruble is worth far less now, than when they paid for the ship, is just too bad, so sad. . .
Putin needs the money to pay the light bill in the Kremlin!
“The French do need to return the Russians money or deliver the ships, as they are not at war.”
On the contrary, France is obligated by the Kellogg-Briand Treaty, Paris Peace Pact of 1928, its Articles of Interpretation, Budapest Conference 1934, and other related international law to refrain from delivering aid and comfort in the form of weaponry to Russia after its aggression against the Ukraine and illegal annexation of the Crimea.
France may lawfully withhold any Russian monies, property, and other assets in trust pending the conclusion of the unlawful Russian aggression against the Ukraine and other nations and a legal determination of whom may receive such assets in compensation for those Russian aggressions.
Tell it to Israel, Putin.
To clarify my position, a more formal determination of hostile military action and invoking of the Kellogg-Briand justification would need to be made by France. The fact that they are still wondering what to do means that they have not invoked Kellogg-Briand.
I'll confess that I am not intimately familiar with the exact working of Kellogg-Briand (and won't have time to read it for this thread). What are the triggering mechanisms and how does it deal with France's ability to both hold assets (pre-payments) in trust, while also selling the vessels? Pre-payments aren't actually weapons?
One can presume Russia will respond to the seizure by freezing French assets held in Russia, so that will have to be considered. Also rather hypocritical to declare Kellogg-Briand to be in effect, and then continue all other trade with Russia.
“Well, you’ve hit on the justification, if one is to be made. Of course, after 1928 aggressive countries that were signatories generally stopped making declarations of war, leaving the matter of interpretation to be very subjective.”
A formal declaration of war is not the only means by which the existence of a belligerency and hostilities is determined, and historically has been a seldom used such method. The breaking of diplomatic relations is one means by which a belligerency is determined to exist in conjunction with military hostilities in particular. A state of war was in effect without a formal declaration of war by Japan when the Japanese attack upon Pearl Harbor occurred, also without a formal declaration of war by Congress being necessary. When the quasi-naval war between France and the united States occurred without a formal declaration of war, the naval warships were nonetheless engaged in hostilities in a state of war. Russia’s military seizure and annexation of the Crimea is an act of war, but the Ukraine has maintained diplomatic relations with Russia, so the existence of an informal state of war prevails.
The Kellogg-Briand Treaty, however, does not necessarily require a formal state of war to be determined before its prohibition of aggression and annexation of the territories of a defending state to take effect. The Articles of Interpretation, Budapest 1934 addresses the duties of neutrals in the event the Kellogg-Briand Treaty is breached by an aggressor who is also a signatory in the treaty. In the present case of Russia, the signatory has breached the Kellogg-Briand treaty by its use of military force to seize and annex the territories of the Ukraine, so the duties of the neutrals in this conflict are obligated to refrain from supplying the aggressor with war material and weaponry until such time as the aggression is resolved with a restoration of the annexed Ukrainian territories. Whether or not the neutrals observe and respect the duties imposed by the treaty and its articles of interpretation is another matter apart from the existence of such international law.
“To clarify my position, a more formal determination of hostile military action and invoking of the Kellogg-Briand justification would need to be made by France.”
The existence of the Russian military seizure, occupation, and annexation of the Crimea in hostile opposition to the Ukraine is sufficient by itslef to constitute a breach of the Kellogg-Briand Treaty mandate for Russia to submit such territorial disputes to peaceful negotiation instead.
“The fact that they are still wondering what to do means that they have not invoked Kellogg-Briand.”
The situation is so much like the current controversies surrounding the lack of respect for the U.S. Constitution, the Charter of the United Nations, and so forth. The law is there to be observed and implemented, yet all too often the governments are disregarding those laws when it suits them and implementing those laws when it does suit them. Nonetheless, there is substantial precedent for deliveries of weaponry to be suspended and/or canceled altogether with the assets being handed over to a trustee pending a final disposition.
“What are the triggering mechanisms and how does it deal with France’s ability to both hold assets (pre-payments) in trust, while also selling the vessels?”
The Kellogg-Briand Treaty forbids the settlement of such territorial disputes and an aggressor’s hostile annexation of a defending state’s territory by signatories. The triggering mechanism is Russia’s use of military force to annex the territories of the Ukraine. Russia’s hostile annexation of the Ukraine’s territory constituted an unlawful act of aggression, and the duties of neutrals with respect to such an aggressor is to refrain from supplying the aggressor with weaponry.
France has a number of options it can pursue with respect to the Mistral warships during the period of time in which Russia remains an aggressor in unlawful occupation of the Ukrainian territories it has annexed and/or occupied. A neutral may choose to intern a belligerent’s warships and merchant vessels. War goods, services, and other properties whose delivery to an aggressor is prohibited by international law may be detained and/or confiscated into the custody of a trustee for the duration of the belligerency. This also includes the monetary proceeds from the sale of any such war contraband. Prepayments are monetary assets for war contraband which may also be held in trust.
“One can presume Russia will respond to the seizure by freezing French assets held in Russia, so that will have to be considered.”
Yes, that is certainly a possibility, but Russia could be held liable for such an act constituting an act of war against the neutral who is obligated by international law to halt deliveries of such war contraband.
“Also rather hypocritical to declare Kellogg-Briand to be in effect, and then continue all other trade with Russia.”
Not necessarily insofar as the trade in question remains within the powers of a neutral power to conduct trade in non-belligerent goods and services to an aggressor. The purpose of the Articles of Interpretation was to put an aggressor at a disadvantage with respect to neutral states by allowing and encouraging the trading of war goods and services by neutral states with the defending state at the same time as prohibiting the same such trading of contraband war goods and services with the aggressor state. The treaty was designed to put the aggressor at a disadvantage while relieving the neutral states from the burden of maintaining an equal embargo of war goods and services to the aggressor and defender states.
A related topic are the provisions for the Office of Alien Property Custodian or a Custodian of Enemy Property. Another is the internment of belligerent warships by a neutral and the confiscation of war contraband by a neutral.
Thanks for the detailed response.
Now that's really rich. Not only have the signatories failed to live up to the terms of the treaty themselves, they've cooperated in violating it on multiple occasions in only the past decade.
Not to mention that the signatories are no longer the same nations they were at the time of the signing and under no obligation to abide by said treaty.
Besides, it ceased to be worth the paper it was printed on the day Roosevelt abrogated the treaty on behalf of the US by shipping military aid to Stalin after Stalin had swallowed half of Poland.
But if it makes you feel all warm and cozy, carry on and start by applying the same rules to everyone who created the fiction of Kosovo out of thin air in order to placate Muzzies.
I'd say "Merry Christmas" but given you penchant for living in a factious bubble, instead I'll say Happy Kwanzaa dude.
Thanks for the laugh.
“Now that’s really rich. Not only have the signatories failed to live up to the terms of the treaty themselves, they’ve cooperated in violating it on multiple occasions in only the past decade.”
France and the Ukraine have not conducted an unlawful aggression with a hostile and unlawful seizure, occupation, and annexation of another state’s territory in breach of the Kellogg-Briand Treaty or Paris Peace Pact of 1928. Russia has done so on multiple occasions.
“Not to mention that the signatories are no longer the same nations they were at the time of the signing and under no obligation to abide by said treaty.”
That is a false statement. The successor state and government is bound by the treaty as well. Since this is a well known principal of international law and custom, you knew or should have known not to neglect the fact, so your comment qualifies as a lie and a rather stupid lie at that.
“Besides, it ceased to be worth the paper it was printed on the day Roosevelt abrogated the treaty on behalf of the US by shipping military aid to Stalin after Stalin had swallowed half of Poland.”
No, you are making another false statement and a false propaganda lie. The military aid was delivered to the Soviet Union after Germany committed its aggression against the Soviet Union in violation of its international treaty, so the Allies were not obligated to withhold war goods from the state that was the object of Germany’s aggression.
“But if it makes you feel all warm and cozy, carry on and start by applying the same rules to everyone who created the fiction of Kosovo out of thin air in order to placate Muzzies.”
You are faithfully repeating another of Putin’s notorious Russian lies. In 1974 Kosovo was established as an autonomous government within the Federal government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Serbia tried to reconquer Kosovo and deny Kosovo its autonomous status.
Your above false propaganda reinforces your qualifications as one of Putin’s army of Internet trolls:
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.