Originally Posted by
petit plateau
The wording "armed attack" is itself undefined.
https://www.shs-conferences.org/arti...2019_01022.pdf
If an action were taken with a piece of timber is that an armed attack ? Does it become an armed attack if the piece of timber is now described as a club ? When does an anchor become a grappling hook ?
Whilst I personally do not consider that these many incidents constitute armed attacks, nonetheless they are worthy of responses so as to dissuade Russia/Putin/etc from undertaking further actions. Those responses do not need to be precisely symmetrical, indeed in my opinion it would be helpful if there were a bit of somewhat random asymmetry so as to make Russia/Putin think very carefully before doing anything again. Or any helpers in China, NORK, etc.
(And this should be entirely separate from giving Ukraine as much as possible by way of support. That should continue/increase as a given.)
Normally. laws act to give an equitable resolution for a situation. In the case of international law, they act to give a friction on the slope towards aggression. Having terms that are ill defined while problematic give options in a response from an event, but also should give pause to an aggressor with an intent to do harm. Common law definitions may be assumed, but that also may result in an outcome that was undesired by the parties concerned.
it sucks, but it normally acts as a brake to ill conceived actions. Except with Russia, who elect to work in the grey assuming that their intended prey will not respond due to their preferred adherence to a higher moral ground.Russia has routinely plumbed the depths of moral depravity and appears to revel in that state. Without a clear position being stated clearly enough that they can understand the consequences, Russia and to an extent China will continue to test the boundaries of acceptable behavior.
Blackadder suggests that a sharp mango may be considered a weapon to be armed with, but that seems to be a position Finland, Estonia, the UN, and the ASEAN nations have not yet reached. Perhaps they should, if there is sufficient popcorn for the ensuing show.
Russia revels in the opportunity to do harm and to destabilize as they take advantage of civilization trying to be civilized, and that begs a question, why are they afforded privileges of being treated as a civilized nation when they have no intent in behaving as one. Rather than "armed" being the trigger condition, perhaps "interference" would result in assisting the recalcitrant child that keeps throwing its rattle out of the crib to behave in a tolerable manner. Vlads mouthpieces continue to bray their intent to revisit a time of empires, which is not consistent with any part of the UN Charter. China has the same geopolitical view.