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.
[Mt. Athos thread article by Doug Bandow] Lithuania ... "is now enforcing a blockade of sorts against Russia.[Mt. Athos #71] A blockade is an act of war...
[Mt. Athos #71] 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.
[Mt. Athos #73] 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.
The Oxford New American Dictionary defines of sorts as "informal, of an atypical and typically inferior type: the training camp actually became a tourist attraction of sorts."
This particular blockade of sorts is not really a blockade, and is not an act of war. It is was an economic sanction which NATO has thoughtfully reconsidered.
So there is not really a blockade, and there is not really a war. And it follows that nobody really violated any international law, or committed an act of war.
A legal definition applies when discussing a term such as a blockade of sorts, and observing that an actual blockade is an act of war.
The bastardized usage is like stating we waged a war on terrorism, or with al Qaeda. It was not a real war, and the captured members of al Qaeda did not become prisoners of war.
You must be a special kind of lawyer. Thank you for your clarification that you did not mean to imply you referred to an actual blockade or an actual act of war. Your usage was more akin to the war on poverty.