-14

Let's say Putin's government funds an NGO (clandestinely, so it looks like a for realz NGO), rents out a ton of large ships, puts on a couple hundred thousand little green men out of uniform and without documents on them, and then has the NGO run them aground in some EU state at night.

Is there any rule or regulation that would allow that EU state to deal with this, or would they have to follow the Dublin convention as the people are already ashore?

I'm making an assumption here that a random EU state would actively dislike the possibility of a couple of hundred thousand suspected Russian military (which they can't prove) hanging around for a long time awaiting refugee applications to be processed (never mind the risk of however many of them succeeding in getting refugee status), since the worst case scenario it could actually be a prelude to an actual military invasion and the best case is an opportunity to infiltrate tons of Putin-friendly people into the country.

closed as off-topic by Bobson, Communisty, Glorfindel, Giter, Philipp Jun 13 '18 at 15:57

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "The primary purpose of this question appears to be to promote or discredit a specific political cause, group or politician. It does not appear to be a good-faith effort to learn more about governments, policies and political processes as defined in the help center." – Bobson, Communisty, Glorfindel, Giter, Philipp
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 6
    I really do not understand how this whole conspiranoic "idea" (hundreds of thousands is not a small number as not to be noticed, none of the Russian soldiers should spill the beans, such a fleet would be detected, there is no actual need of an NGO -hint: NGOs have no legal powers and do not decide who enters a country-) is supposed to work. And I do not care. There are always emergency powers that allow for suspension of laws, with little need of previous justification (in 2008 the UK seized assets from Icelandic banks by using anti-terrorist laws, if you need an example of flexibility). – SJuan76 Jun 13 '18 at 0:16
  • 8
    So would these people have any weapons? Would they pretend to be refugees from Russia, a country without a major refugee-causing crisis? That's a lot of people from a relatively stable country to just show up one night, and the massive fleet would be detected as soon as it left Russian ports. I don't think there'd be any doubt that these people aren't refugees, and the relevant navies would stop them far from shore. – Giter Jun 13 '18 at 0:45
  • @philip - to answer your question in the answer you deleted, no the question pointed out that they pretend they are civvies. No uniforms, no weapons, no IDs (so no way to conclusively prove they are members of RF armed forces, absent China-scale facial recognition AI). – user4012 Jun 13 '18 at 19:39
  • 2
    I suppose they could do the same they do with normal migrants: put them in guarded, barbed-wire surrounded refugee camps. Now Russia has tons of weapons without nobody to use them and we have its whole army prisoner. We've already won! – Rekesoft Jun 14 '18 at 11:18
  • @Rekesoft - Are you sure that 100% of refugees from other countries are sitting "in guarded, barbed-wire surrounded refugee camps" in EU? (as opposed to most of them being in society by now) – user4012 Jun 14 '18 at 13:06
5

What you describe: 100000 Russians coming ashore is called "an invasion".

Article 51 of the UN charter:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.

EU law doesn't deal with matters of invasions, this is a matter for the Security Council. This massive fleet would be detected by the navies of countries and stopped by said navies (unless the Russian ships had significant naval and air support).

The Dublin Convention does not apply to invasions.

  • This answer contradicts the premise of the question. It's illegal to use navies to stop ostensibly civilian ships – user4012 Jun 13 '18 at 11:13
  • 1
    @user4012 Where do you get the info that "it is illegal to use navies to stop ostensibly civilian ships"? The US Coast Guard is part of the USA armed forces, and naval ships around the world are used to patrol and control fisheries en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Brocklesby_(M33)#Cherbourg_incident. And of course en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_raid – SJuan76 Jun 13 '18 at 11:41
  • 6
    Navies are used all the time to police the seas around a country, that means "stopping civilian ships". However, the premise of the question assumes a flotilla of about 100 ships heading for shore. That is not ostensibly civilian. That is ostensibly a military invasion, and would be met as such. If the nation was also a Nato member, article 5 could also be invoked. – James K Jun 13 '18 at 13:30
  • 1
    Moreover, "a couple of hundred thousands" would mean a couple of hundred ships, if not more. That is even logistically difficult. – Thern Jun 13 '18 at 13:45
  • 3
    @user4012 it is true that they do not sink civilian, unarmed ships with gunfire, if it is what you meant. But the ships are out there and checking for traffic (note: there are no news reports every time a ship is inspected). The issue is that many of the ships carrying illegal migrants are boats with a high risk of sinking at sea, so often when they are stopped it becomes a rescue operation, and North Africa is not considered a safe location to disembark the rescued people. bbc.com/news/world-europe-44465152 – SJuan76 Jun 13 '18 at 14:10

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.