Posted on 07/01/2022 11:21:24 AM PDT by Mount Athos
Name them our shut your mouth, Putin Puffer.
Post of the day!
Is Doug Babdow an idiot?
Yes, he is.
A bully nation will not be stopped by others prostrating themselves before it or mirroring its behavior.
NATO are all weak sisters
:)
A blockade is an act of war...
It is not a blockade. A blockade is an international act of war wherein one state blockades the ports of an enemy state. A state cannot blockade itself. Lithuania is not blockading all the ports of Kaliningrad, much less Russia.
There are several candidate terms for what has been done, from least plausible to most plausible:
In a blockade, as instituted in the American Civil War, all nations of the world are informed of its existence and are prohibited from running the blockade. Any ship detected running the blockade may be pursued and captured on the high seas. A blockade only happens at an enemy's coast.
The domestic act is a closing of the ports. That is where a nation prohibits ships entering or leaving its own ports. Near the end of the war, on April 11, 1865, Lincoln proclaimed a change from blockade to a closing of the ports.
An embargo is an economic policy to not trade with another state. An example would be the United States embargo against Cuba. All trade is prohibited.
A sanction is rather like a selective, limited or targeted embargo. It does not suspend all trade. The action by Lithuania is a sanction, an economic coercive measure taken against another state to force it to comply with international law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade
A blockade is the act of actively preventing a country or region from receiving or sending out food, supplies, weapons, or communications, and sometimes people, by military force. A blockade differs from an embargo or sanction, which are legal barriers to trade rather than physical barriers. It is also distinct from a siege in that a blockade is usually directed at an entire country or region, rather than a fortress or city and the objective may not always be to conquer the area.
https://www.mei.edu/publications/blockade-and-embargo-have-different-meanings
MIddle East InstituteAn embargo is when one nation establishes a policy not to trade with another nation and not to allow its own ports or territory to be used for commerce with that nation. Establishment of an embargo is the prerogative of any nation. For decades the United States has had an embargo on trade with Cuba. This is a policy decision which has been made by the Government. The policy may be wise or foolish, but nations are clearly within their rights to establish embargos.
Similarly, Israel and Egypt have a right to embargo trade with Gaza. If Egypt or Israel believes the Government in Gaza poses a threat to its stability or security, they have a right to place an embargo on Gaza. What that means is that trade with Gaza is restricted through Israeli and Egyptian ports and territory. Nations have the right to secure their borders and the Israelis and the Egyptians are exercising that right.
A blockade is totally different. A blockade is closing to international commerce by military force the coast of another entity. A blockade prevents third parties from undertaking normal commercial activity. A blockade is an act of war rather than merely exercising one’s own prerogatives.
In 1967, when the Government of Egypt closed the straits of Tiran to Israeli or third party commerce with the port of Eilat, they established a blockade. The Egyptians, thus, initiated a war with Israel. The Israelis were, therefore, justified in launching their military operations against Egypt in June 1967. The Egyptian blockade of the straits differed significantly from the Arab League policy of boycotting Israel. Blockading the straits crossed the line from a confrontational policy to an act of war.
In legalese:
Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Ed.
blockade, n. (17c) Int’l law.A belligerent’s prevention of access to or egress from an enemy’s ports by stationing ships to intercept vessels trying to enter or leave those ports. • To be binding, a blockade must be effective — that is, it must be maintained by a force sufficient to prevent access to ports. — Also termed simple blockade; de facto blockade.
“A blockade must be existing in point of fact; and in order to constitute that existence, there must be a power present to enforce it. All decrees and orders, declaring extensive coasts and whole countries in a state of blockade, without the presence of an adequate naval force to support it, are manifestly illegal and void, and have no sanction in public law.” 1 James Kent, Commentaries on American Law *144 (George Comstock ed., 11th ed. 1866).
“The word blockade properly denotes obstructing the passage into or from a place on either element, but is more especially applied to naval forces preventing communication by water. Unlike siege it implies no intention to get possession of the blockaded place. With blockades by land or ordinary sieges neutrals have usually little to do.” Theodore D. Woolsey, Introduction to the Study of International Law § 202, at 351 (5th ed. 1878).
“The term ‘blockade’ is all too often used for measures that do not qualify as a blockade proper, such as sieges on land or the barring of passage through an international strait or an international canal. Sometimes the use of the term is cautiously avoided because states are unwilling to admit that they are indeed establishing and enforcing a blockade against another state. Neither the erroneous use of the term nor the refusal of its use [is] relevant to the legal concept of blockade. A blockade is a military operation to prevent all vessels and/or aircraft from entering or exiting specified ports, airports, or coastal areas belonging to or under the control of another state. Hence, a blockade by its very nature can only be established off the coast of another state and not within the territory of another state or within a sea area that is not geographically connected with land territory, that is, on the high seas.” Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg, “Blockades and Interdictions,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law 925, 927 (Marc Weller ed., 2015).
• pacific blockade. (1887) Int’l law. A blockade that is established without a declaration of war.
• public blockade. (1865) Int’l law. An established blockade of which the blockading country gives formal notice to the governments of neutral countries.
- - - - - - - - - -
embargo3. The unilateral or collective restrictions on the import or export of goods, materials, capital, or services into or from a secific country or group of countries for political or security reasons —Also termed trade embargo, economic-cure trade embargo.
- - - - - - - - - -
4. Int'l law An economic or military coercive measure taken by one or more countries toward another to force it to comply with international law. . sanction
You can’t be serious. Being against LGBT doesn’t give Russia a license to subjugate neighboring nations who want to have nothing in common with Russia. Ask the Finns, the Lithuanians, the Latvians, the Polish and the Ukrainians what they think about Russia. And it’s quite ironic that your screen name is the name of a famous Polish king, but you are an advocate for Russia.
Do you really believe that despotic imperialism of the Russian sort is the only way to fight against the LGBT insanity? If so, do you support the abolition of the US Constitution? Should the US have a dictator as Russia does?
Things have changed since the 1600s. Defending disenfranchised persecuted Russian speakers is not subjugation. It is freedom fighting
Isn’t a blockade an act of war? Doesn’t such an act nullify article five of the NATO charter? What if Russia declared a brocade on the USA? A few subs to enforce it—the insurance companies would do the rest. What about a blockade of oil ships in the Gulf by Iran? This is ill though out—passion blocking rational thought. We should let Lithuania know that if Russia invades—we will not help them.
You must not be a lawyer, because the definitions you posted prove that your conception of a what a blockade must be is totally wrong.
You must not be a lawyer, because the definitions you posted prove that your conception of a what a blockade must be is totally wrong.
Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Ed., 2019, quoting Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg, “Blockades and Interdictions,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law 925, 927 (Marc Weller ed., 2015):
A blockade is a military operation to prevent all vessels and/or aircraft from entering or exiting specified ports, airports, or coastal areas belonging to or under the control of another state. Hence, a blockade by its very nature can only be established off the coast of another state and not within the territory of another state or within a sea area that is not geographically connected with land territory, that is, on the high seas.”
Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Ed, 1019 proves beyond a doubt that you do not have a clue regarding what a blockade is.
You must not be a reader of things legal. Your ignorance of the law is no excuse after you have had the law quoted to you from the current edition of the foremost law dictionary in the United States. However, it does explain the complete lack of any significant content whatever in your reply. Do you usually get away with that sort of content free nonsense?
Pursuant to international law, only a belligerent party can blockade something, and that something must be another state. If Lithuania were to issue a blockade, it would make them a belligerent party to a war. Lithuania and Russia are not at war.
You are the one stating that the Lithuuanian denial of the use of Lithuanian land territory is a blockade. Your citation to any actual authority other than your imagination was sorely lacking.
https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/blockade/
The Practical Guide to Humanitarian Law« Calling things by the wrong name adds to the affliction of the world. » Albert Camus.
Blockade
A blockade is a military operation that blocks all maritime movement to or from a port or coast. Blockades may also be aerial. A military operation carried out on land that isolates or encircles an area is called a siege.
A blockade is an act of war that is regulated by international law—namely, by the 1856 Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law and by Articles 1–22 of the 1909 London Declaration Concerning the Laws of Naval War. It is important to distinguish between the terms blockade and embargo . An embargo is a type of economic sanction that may be adopted under the aegis of the UN or another international organization, to try to force a State to comply with a decision.
Regardless of whether the situation is a blockade or an embargo, humanitarian law clearly posits that States are under the obligation to allow the free passage of relief that is of an exclusively humanitarian and impartial nature and is indispensable to the survival of the civilian population (GCIV Art. 23, API Art. 70, and APII Art. 18.2).
https://www.britannica.com/topic/blockade-warfare
The common law of blockade rests mainly upon principles laid down by Anglo-U.S. prize courts. The more important of these are summarized in the judgments of British jurist Stephen Lushington and Privy Council in an 1854 decision regarding the Franciska, a Danish ship that was seized by the British during the Crimean War.
U.S. Supreme Court, Prize Cases, 67 U.S. 2 Black 635 (1862)
Syllabus
1. Neutrals may question the existence of a blockade, and challenge the legal authority of the party which has undertaken to establish it.2. One belligerent, engaged in actual war, has a right to blockade the ports of the other, and neutrals are bound to respect that right.
3. To justify the exercise of this right, and legalize the capture of a neutral vessel for violating it, a state of actual war must exist, and the neutral must have knowledge or notice that it is the intention of one belligerent to blockade the ports of the other.
4. To create this and other belligerent rights as against neutrals, it is not necessary that the party claiming them should be at war with a separate and independent power; the parties to a civil war are in the same predicament as two nations who engage in a contest and have recourse to arms.
5. A state of actual war may exist without any formal declaration of it by either party, and this is true of both a civil and a foreign war.
6. A civil war exists, and may be prosecuted on the same footing as if those opposing the Government were foreign invaders, whenever the regular course of justice is interrupted by revolt, rebellion, or insurrection, so that the Courts cannot be kept open.
7. The present civil war between the United States and the so-called Confederate States has such character and magnitude as to give the United States the same rights and powers which they might exercise in the case of a national or foreign war, and they have, therefore, the right jure bello to institute a blockade of any ports in possession of the rebellious States.
8. The proclamation of blockade by the President is, of itself, conclusive evidence that a state of war existed which demanded and authorized recourse to such a measure.
9. All persons residing within the territory occupied by the hostile party in this contest are liable to be treated as enemies, though not foreigners.
10. It is a settled rule that a vessel in a blockaded port is presumed to have notice of a blockade as soon as it commences.
11. The proclamation of blockade having allowed fifteen days for neutrals to leave, a vessel which overstays the time is liable to capture although she was prevented by accident from getting out sooner.
12. To make a capture lawful, it is not necessary that a warning of the blockade should have been previously endorsed on the register of the captured vessel.
In Northcote v. Douglas—Franciska (The) [1855], E.R. XIV, P.C. III, 407-408; X Moore 51-52
These passages refer only to ingress and the importation of goods, but it is clear that the operations of the siege or blockade may be interrupted by any communication of the blockaded or besieged place with foreigners; and Lord Stowell, when he defines a blockade, always speaks of it as the exclusion of the blockaded place from all commerce, whether by egress or ingress. In The Frederick Molke (1 Rob. 87), he says:—“What is the object of a blockade? not merely to prevent an importation of supplies; but to prevent export as well as import; and to cut off all communication of commerce with the blockaded place.” In The Betsey (1 Rob. 93)—“After the commencement of a blockade a neutral cannot, I conceive, be allowed to interpose in any way to assist the exportation of the property of the enemy.” In The Vrouw Judith (1 Rob. 151)—“A blockade is a sort of circumvallation round a place, by which all foreign connexion and correspondence is, as far all human force can effect it, to be entirely cut off. It is intended to suspend the entire commerce of that place; and a neutral is no more at liberty to assist the traffic of exportation than of importation.” In The Rolla (6 Rob. 372)—“What is a blockade but a uniform universal exclusion of all vessels not privileged by law?” In The Succeed (1 Dods. 134)—“The measure which has been resorted to, being in the nature of a blockade, must operate to the entire exclusion of British as well as of neutral ships; for it would be a gross violation of neutral rights, to prohibit their trade, and to permit the subjects of this country to carry on an unrestricted commerce at the very same ports from which neutrals are excluded.”
The precise dates, and the precise events, of the start and end of the American Civil War was addressed by the United States Supreme Court in the case of The Protector, 79 U.S. 700 (1870).
It is necessary, therefore, to refer to some public act of the political departments of the government to fix the dates, and, for obvious reasons, those of the executive department which may be and in fact was, at the commencement of hostilities, obliged to act during the recess of Congress, must be taken.The proclamation of intended blockade by the President may therefore be assumed as marking the first of these dates, and the proclamation that the war had closed as marking the second. But the war did not begin or close at the same time in all the states. There were two proclamations of intended blockade: the first of the 19th of April, 1861, embracing the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas; the second of the 27th of April, 1861,
Brown v Hiatts, 82 U.S. 177 (1872) the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the matter again.
Opinion of the Court at 183-185:
It was held in the case of The Protector that the war began in that State at the date of the proclamation of intended blockade of her ports by the President. That was the first public act of the executive in which the existence of war in that State was officially recognized, and to its date the courts therefore look as the commencement of the war.
https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1012&context=ils
INTERNATIONAL LAW STUDIES
U.S. NAVAL WAR COLLEGE
Modern Maritime Neutrality Law
James Farrant
90 INT’L L. STUD. 198 (2014)
Volume 90 2014
At page 251:
A. BlockadeIn 1997, Captain Humphrey, then Chief Naval Judge Advocate of the UK Royal Navy, wrote:
The experiences and practices in the two world wars left the law of blockade devoid of most of its traditional characteristics and made its applicability and content post 1945 questionable. The practical effect may be that formal blockade in the sense of close visible investment has become obsolete and resort has to be had to other methods such as mine-laying and institution of war zones.252
Nonetheless, in recent years classic blockade has been twice employed by Israel—in 2006 in Lebanon and in 2009 in Gaza.253
253. Russian controls on Georgian trade at sea during the 2008 conflict were described as a “blockade” in some news sources. See, e.g., Russian Navy Blockade [sic] Georgia, CHINA VIEW (Aug. 10, 2008), http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-08/10/content_ 9138604.htm#prof.
The 2009 Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia instead described Russian Black Sea Fleet activity as enforcement of a “maritime security zone.” FACT-FINDING REPORT, supra note 144, at 212.
At page 252:
Blockade is the blocking of the approach to the enemy coast or ports for the purpose of preventing the ingress and egress of ships and aircraft of all States.255 It has been described asa sort of circumvallation around a place, by which all foreign connexion [sic] and correspondence is, as far as human force can effect it, to be en-tirely cut off. It is intended to suspend the entire commerce of that place; and a neutral is no more at liberty to assist the traffic of exportation than importation.256To be lawful, a blockade must comply with five requirements: notification, effectiveness, impartiality, proportionality and the preservation of access to neutral coasts.
255. NWP 1-14M, supra note 23, ¶ 7.7.1; SAN REMO MANUAL, supra note 26, at 176.
256. The Vrouw Judith (1799) 1 C. Rob. 150, 151–52, per Sir William Scott.
At page 254:
2. EffectivenessA blockade must be effective.265 Effectiveness is a question of fact, determined by the risk of capture faced by vessels attempting to breach the blockade. There must be sufficient danger of capture before the blockade can be considered effective.266 Dangerousness does not necessitate interception of every blockade runner, but sufficient military resources must be committed to render it probable that vessels and aircraft will be prevented from entering or leaving the blockaded area. The dangerousness requirement has its origins in the protection of neutral rights. Found in Article 4 of the 1856 Declaration of Paris, it is grounded in the neutral desire that belligerent powers not be permitted to declare “paper blockades” without the means or motive to enforce them. In determining dangerousness, the distance of the blockading force from the coast and the nature of the blockading force will be relevant factors.
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, Part IV, Section 2, 12 June 1994
METHODS OF WARFARESECTION II : METHODS OF WARFARE
Blockade
93. A blockade shall be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral States.
94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration, location, and extent of the blockade and the period within which vessels of neutral States may leave the blockaded coastline.
95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.
96. The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements.
97. A blockade may be enforced and maintained by a combination of legitimate methods and means of warfare provided this combination does not result in acts inconsistent with the rules set out in this document.
98 Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked.
99. A blockade must not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States.
100. A blockade must be applied impartially to the vessels of all States.
101 The cessation, temporary lifting, re-establishment, extension or other alteration of a blockade must be declared and notified as in paragraphs 93 and 94.
102 The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:
(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or
(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.
103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to:
(a) the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and
(b) the condition that the distribution of such supplies shall be made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.
104. The blockading belligerent shall allow the passage of medical supplies for the civilian population or for the wounded and sick members of armed forces, subject to the right to prescribe technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted.
An "economic blockade" only summons Black's Law Dictionary, “The term ‘blockade’ is all too often used for measures that do not qualify as a blockade proper, such as sieges on land or the barring of passage through an international strait or an international canal."
https://armenianweekly.com/2014/02/20/economic-blockades-and-international-law-the-case-of-armenia/
Economic Blockades and International Law: The Case of Armenia
February 20, 2014 Armen Sahakyan
[excerpt]
An economic blockade is a type of unilateral coercive measure. It is widely acknowledged that the term “unilateral coercive measure” is difficult to define. Nevertheless, these measures often refer to economic steps taken by one state to compel a change in the policy of another. The most widely used forms of economic pressure are trade sanctions in the form of embargoes and/or boycotts, and the interruption of financial and investment flows between sender and target countries. While embargoes are often understood as being trade sanctions aimed at preventing exports to a target country, boycotts are measures seeking to refuse imports from a target country. Frequently, however, the combination of import and export restrictions is referred to as a trade embargo.Turkey and Azerbaijan have effectively been exercising an illegal unilateral economic blockade against Armenia, which has hurt the latter economically. The UN Security Council, the sole body to legally authorize sanctions against states, has not done so against Armenia.
Or as Black's Law Dictionary defined Sanction, "An economic or military coercive measure taken by one or more countries toward another to force it to comply with international law."
An "economic blockade" is a blockade in the same sense that the war on drugs was a war. It is just verbal pollution.
The nearest land-based equivalent to a blockade is a siege.
Yoram Dinstein, The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict, 2nd Ed., Cambreidge University Press, 2010, pg. 220
Siege warfare539. Siege warfare is conducted by encircling an enemy military concentration, a strategic fortress or any other location defended by the enemy, cutting it off from channels of support and supply. The essence of siege warfare lies in an attempt to capture the invested location through starvation. When siege warfare is directed against a military stronghold, enemy combatants may be the only ones suffering from lack of adequate supplies. But on many occasions there would be a substantial civilian population in the surrounded area. This is especially the case when siege is laid to a defended town (see supra 265). While actual resistance to the investing force may be offered exclusively by the military garrison manning the bastions, the civilian inhabitants of the town - possibly joined by refugees from the adjacent countryside - will naturally share in the privations of a prolonged siege. Indeed, they are likely to be the first victims of any resultant famine.
The legality of siege as a method of warfare has not been questioned in the past. Even the diversion of the channel of a river supplying drinking water to the besieged used to be permitted. Siege was deemed a lawful method of warfare although most of the fatalities caused by food shortages tended to be civilians rather than combatants.
You’re some kind of autist retard pulling out a law dictionary on a forum discussion, when you know damn well that its definitions aren’t the only valid usage of words.
Lithuania constantly used the word “blockade” for what it went through in 1990. In official diplomatic channels, news articles, historic documentation...
None of its ports were blocked. It wasn’t at war.
All kinds of diplomats, national leaders, historians, and official government orgs talked about “The Berlin Blockade”.
None of Germany’s ports were blocked, it wasn’t at war.
The funny thing though is that you don’t even read your own citations.
You insist the legal definition only applies to sea ports, when your own citation explicitly allows that it isn’t necessary — it can apply for other means of goods transport. You insist it must be all ports, when your citation says that isn’t so either.
Same with your insistence that the parties must be at war. All contradicted by your own citation in your earlier post.
Stop lying, Putin Pig.
Yeah, the Russians are actually much less civilized now post-communist collapse as back then.
There will be NO greater anti-americans than the pro-russian brigade on FR. At least on this site.
Another PUtler fan liar. Bidet tried his best to throw Ukraine under the bus and was fully prepared to allow RuSSia to invade it and take it.
Only after Ukraine rose with a roar and said NO did anyone in the West give a shyt.
They want Putin to take over the west, so they can get down on their knees and suck his girldick.
“a minor incursion” would be tolerated.
I don’t give a rat’s behind what you believe.
It doesn’t matter. What matters is knowing right from wrong.
You don’t.
How many of those Russian-speaking people actually consider themselves Ukrainian? I have read that after the Russian invasion some Russian-speaking people in Ukraine started to speak Ukrainian.
How many of the Russian-speaking people who consider themselves Russian were settled in Ukraine after the infamous Stalinist famine or are descendants of these settlers. Russia can’t use the consequences of a policy of a totalitarian communist state as a pretext for its claims.
If those Russians don’t like it in Ukraine, they can always move to Russia. If Uncle Vlad were a wise ruler, he would welcome them with open arms. He needs more ethnic Russians in Russia because non-Russian ethnic groups have a higher birthrate.
How hard is it to understand that you can’t simply start a war with a neighboring country, which may well cost 100,000 lives, just because you don’t like its politics?
How hard is it to understand that you can’t wage war in the way Russia does: to raze whole cities to the ground? Civilized people call it a war crime. If the US did one tenth of what Russia did in Ukraine, its military commanders would be court-martialed and - possibly - the president would be removed from office.
How hard is to understand that Putin wants to restore the Russian empire and uses ethnic Russians in Ukraine only as a pretext? He himself said that the Ukrainians weren’t a nation. He wants to destroy the Ukrainian nation. Civilized people call it genocide.
How hard is it to understand that the word “freedom” has no meaning in Russia? Russia has ALWAYS been a despotic state. If Russia doesn’t want to be treated as a despotic state, it has to PROVE that it isn’t a despotic state anymore
I hope your relatives are slaughtered by raging BLM mobs. See how easy that kind of cheap shot is? Now get off your high horse - Russia can do as it pleases. America isn’t involved and has no right to interfere.
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.