By: Alexander Lott (Marie Curie research fellow at the Norwegian Centre for the Law of the Sea).
PDF: https://site.uit.no/nclos/wp-content/uploads/sites/179/2023/11/Alexander-Lott-NCLOS-Blog_Nord-Stream-Jus-in-Bello-Case-Study_-Final.pdf
Preliminary Western intelligence reports have emerged about a purportedly pro-Ukrainian group of six divers conducting the sabotage against the Nord Stream pipelines in September last year. The Ukrainian Government denies any involvement in such an alleged operation. Nonetheless, recently, the Washington Post and Der Spiegel published a joint report which reached the unequivocal conclusion that:
“A senior Ukrainian military officer with deep ties to the country’s intelligence services played a central role in the bombing of the Nord Stream natural gas pipelines last year, according to officials in Ukraine and elsewhere in Europe, as well as other people knowledgeable about the details of the covert operation. /…/ Chervinsky did not act alone, and he did not plan the operation, according to the people familiar with his role, which has not been previously reported. The officer took orders from more senior Ukrainian officials, who ultimately reported to Gen. Valery Zaluzhny, Ukraine’s highest-ranking military officer, said people familiar with how the operation was carried out.”
In the context of an armed conflict, the attribution standards are more flexible than in peace time. It would suffice that a belligerent State exercises overall control over a group of persons by way of financing and provision of training, logistics, and weapons for invoking that State’s responsibility for the relevant acts. In case Ukraine as a belligerent State exercised overall control over the group of divers that allegedly conducted the Nord Stream explosions, it would prima facie imply Ukraine’s responsibility for the sabotage against the Nord Stream pipelines.
During an international armed conflict, the protection standards of offshore critical infrastructure differ depending on whether the object is located within or outside the limits of a neutral State’s territorial sea. Conducting military operations within a neutral State’s territorial sea is prohibited. By contrast, even such pipelines (as well as cables) that do not exclusively serve belligerent States might, in situations of military necessity, serve as lawful military targets in areas where the high seas freedoms apply even if the pipelines (or cables) land in a neutral State. However, belligerent States must meet the requirement of due regard for the rights and duties of the coastal State, inter alia, for the exploration and exploitation of the economic resources of the EEZ and the continental shelf and the protection and preservation of the marine environment.
It is doubtful that the Nord Stream pipelines could have served as a military objective even in the context of the armed conflict between the Russian Federation and Ukraine. The Nord Stream pipelines likely did not serve as a civilian object that contributed to a belligerent State’s war-sustaining effort from the perspective of the ongoing international armed conflict in Europe, given that the flow of natural gas from the Russian Federation to Germany had stopped by the time the attacks were launched against the Nord Stream pipelines in September 2022. Nor did the perpetrators of the attack give due regard for the protection and preservation of the Baltic Sea marine environment. Based on these reasons, it appears that an attack allegedly attributable to Ukraine against the Nord Stream pipelines was not in conformity with the law of armed conflict.
Latest News - here
In an interview with Novinky, Petr Pavel (Czech president) said: “Nord Stream is legitimate target in war, since pipelines are a strategic target. If the attack was aimed at cutting off gas and oil supplies to Europe and returning money back to Russia, then - and I'm speaking conditionally - it would be a legitimate target. At the time, we already had a number of alternatives, so Nord Stream was not a critical pipeline on which Europe's energy security depended. Of course, it caused some complications, but not ones that we could not handle”
The Answer - here
Maria Zakharova’s TG Channel -
*I read this delusional statement and thought that even for such a provocative fringe figure, this is over the top. Previously, only representatives of banned international terrorist organizations would express such "thoughts." Judge for yourself:
* *"We call on you to carry out attacks on American citizens and military personnel both inside the U.S. and outside the country" (Ibrahim al-Asiri, chief bomb-maker of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula [an organization banned in the Russian Federation]).
* *"We must punish those who violate borders and desecrate sanctities. The operation of Muhammad Abdulaziz (the Muhammad Yusuf Abdulaziz terrorist attack in Tennessee), which took place in the very heart of American soil, is a vivid example of this. He infiltrated the base during a blessed jihadist operation. We ask Allah to accept him and elevate him among the martyrs" (Khalid Batarfi, head of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula).
* *"Attack the bases of the Egyptian army on the Sinai Peninsula, capture and blow up their homes, behead them, ambush them. Turn their lives into hell. Do not let them breathe easily or feel safe" (Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, spokesperson for ISIS [an organization banned in the Russian Federation]).* *"You all must direct your arrows and swords against the USA" (Qasim al-Raymi, head of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula).
* *"The coalition that Saudi Arabia has decided to form today is nothing more than a new group of watchdogs. Therefore, we advise the mujahideen in Syria to target anyone who joins or intends to join this army" (Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, spokesperson for ISIS).*
No comments:
Post a Comment