New answers tagged

0

The environment as a global concern is relatively new unlike war or slavery. Thus existing legislation is thin on the ground. However, there are a number of proposals. Ecocide has been proposed by a panel of 12 legal experts around the world as an international crime akin to genocude and crimes against humanity. The definition was unveiled in June this year. ...


0

This is a hypothetical question. Article 8 of NATO's treaty says: Each party declares that none of the international conflicts now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third state is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty and undertakes not to enter in any international engagement in conflict with the Treaty. Hence the states are ...


2

If one member attacks another member of NATO, the aggressor is out of NATO via article 8. And then at war with all of NATO via article 5. Now, you know what's the pinchy topic? Imagine Turkey attacks Cyprus (that is not in NATO but in the EU). The EU treaty article 42, item 7. states there is a clause of mutual defense clause (if any member state gets ...


35

International laws don't prevent anything unless you're interested in having a war to back them up.


3

I can't speak for Russian laws on the matter. I can, however, speak about the legal situation in Germany which, I presume, is comparable. One key phrase in a German legal text is § 26 of the Aufenthaltsverordnung (Residence Order; my translation). (1) Ausländer, die sich im Bundesgebiet befinden, ohne im Sinne des § 13 Abs. 2 des Aufenthaltsgesetzes ...


21

There is an 1978 Amazon Cooperation Treaty but its wording on the matter is so vague and aspirational that it could hardly constitute any kind of firm commitment to concrete objectives: “achieve also the preservation of the environment, and the conservation and rational utilization of the natural resources of those territories.” It is basically a "...


65

what international laws bar or place limits on how Brazil can use the Amazon keeping in mind the Brazilian government has jurisdiction over Brazilian land. There are no such international laws. A good answer by @Fizz notes that there are non-binding aspirational commitments in several international understandings to which Brazil is a party (which I will not ...


5

A significant part of the problem is the location of a given ADIZ. In the case of the North American ADIZ, operated jointly by the United States and Canada, there's very rarely any reason to be there unless you're either intending to enter the airspace of at least one of the United States or Canada or are just there to test NORAD's defense capabilities. ...


9

Without a formal agreement it looks like only civilian aircraft are actually encumbered by identification procedures This is precisely the point of an ADIZ. The basic idea is that a country wants to establish a "buffer zone" around its territory so that incoming aircraft, which may be hostile bombers, can be seen and intercepted before reaching ...


25

You're mentioning the US stance on this but generally speaking the US is not so high on reciprocity and they have enough clout to demand or get away with things they wouldn't tolerate, from access to airspace to inspections of sensitive sites, intervention in various matters in other countries, or even clandestine or special military operations. If one of ...


19

The ADIZ is simply a unilaterally established set of procedures followed by one country's air defense forces, and does not have to be "accepted" by other countries if they are prepared to have their aircraft intercepted. The keyword is unilaterally. Countries are free to declare whatever air defense identification zone they want. Indeed, you can ...


6

There are several different angles to this. Transit is not always a human right: Countries can specify entry and exit points. That can go as far as banning the crossing to a specific neighbour. There is a recognized human right to leave a country (absent criminal charges or the like), but that does not allow one to pick the time and place. There could even ...


5

I'm answering this from a (geo)political perspective. If you want a more legally focused answer then I would suggest asking on Law.SE as well. In this case, I'm considering what a country is allowed to do to foreigners from an international law perspective and what other countries can do in retaliation to a country crossing the line. Generally speaking I ...


Top 50 recent answers are included