“”Obviously, delivering these weapons are acts of war””
Explain that deliberate lie.
[Jim Noble] Obviously, delivering these weapons are acts of war.[Ansel12] Explain that deliberate lie.
I bring your attention to the following Legal Sidebar by the U.S. Congressional Research Service.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10735
International Neutrality Law and U.S. Military Assistance to UkraineApril 26, 2022
Congressional Research Service, Legal Sidebar
At page 2:
Sources and Requirements of the Law of Neutrality
The law of neutrality has its roots in 17th and 18th century state practice in which countries developed a system of reciprocal rights and obligations for neutral states and belligerents. Neutral states have a duty not to participate in hostilities and to be impartial in their conduct toward belligerents. In return, belligerents are obligated to respect neutral states’ territory, and neutrals are permitted to trade with all sides of the conflict if they do so in an impartial way. Countries eventually came to accept certain principles of neutrality as part of customary international law—a body of law that is derived from state practice followed out of a sense of legal obligation.
Many facets of neutrality law were defined in two treaties adopted at a 1907 peace conference:
• the Hague Convention (V) Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land (Hague V) and
• the Hague Convention (XIII) Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War (Hague XIII).
Under Hague V and XIII, neutral states cannot provide “ammunition, or war material of any kind whatever” to belligerents. The treaties exempt humanitarian assistance from this prohibition, and they do not require neutral states to prevent private companies from selling munitions and war material. Neutral states also have an obligation to prevent belligerents from committing certain hostile acts on neutral states’ territory, and Hague V and XIII require neutrals to intern and detain belligerent forces found in their territory. As part of their corresponding set of duties, belligerents must treat neutral states’ territory as inviolable. Belligerents may not move troops, munitions, or supplies, across neutral territory, and they may not set up communication apparatuses or recruit combatants, among other things, on neutral territory. Although Hague V and Hague XIII each have fewer than 35 state parties, the United States, Ukraine, and Russia have ratified both treaties.
Some observers view Hague V and XIII as reflecting customary international law, which is binding on all countries absent an objection. Others disagree with this view. In 2016, the U.S. Department of Defense observed that “it may be incorrect to assume” that Hague V and XIII reflect customary international law when “current events are quite different” from the time the treaties were drafted. Some commentators have gone so far as to question whether states so frequently ignore neutrality obligations that the treaties have fallen into a state of obsolescence and are no longer binding. The International Court of Justice has not directly addressed the customary status of these treaties, but it did state in an advisory opinion that “the principle of neutrality, whatever its content, … is of a fundamental character” that applies in all international armed conflicts.