|
On August 16 2012 22:27 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 22:23 Opera wrote:On August 16 2012 22:14 itsjustatank wrote:On August 16 2012 22:13 Opera wrote:On August 16 2012 22:11 itsjustatank wrote:On August 16 2012 22:09 DwD wrote:
he is promoted to the Ecuadorian U.N representative so he can travel freely. Depending on how far the UK wants to go, not even 'international law' can save Assange. Ecuador annouced they'll do whatever it takes to prevent UK Police entering their embassy. That's a lot of bluster coming from a small nation relative to the UK. Funnily enough, neither of them can project enough power to invade the other though. Locally though, the UK has superior special forces units versus Ecuadorean embassy guards; it won't even be close. Using violence to extract Assange from the embassy would be a really bad decision though. Not even the Chinese government tried to enter the US Embassy to arrest the Chinese dissident Chen Guangchen. The power relations between the US and the PRC are way different from the power relations between the UK and Ecuador. China, while a de facto regional hegemon, knows that any potential conflict with the United States, in both hard and soft terms, will be highly damaging, making it against their national interest to do what you suggest to the American embassy. I'm not exactly sure what the calculation behind an assault would entail, but I'm willing to bet the UK feels that it is in their interest to blow off Ecuadorian protests and extraterritorial status to get Assange because there's simply not much downside to it.
It would still be a violation of international laws. And for a so-called democracy to be the first to do so is quite a big deal. Especially knowing that it's pressure from the US which could trigger such an action.
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
On August 16 2012 22:35 Greentellon wrote:
Even China respected US embassy when the Chinese dissent was hiding inside it. Good call, Equador! Respect +10 points.
Equating Ecuador with the UK as power equals is a bad assumption.
On August 16 2012 22:37 Opera wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 22:27 itsjustatank wrote:On August 16 2012 22:23 Opera wrote:On August 16 2012 22:14 itsjustatank wrote:On August 16 2012 22:13 Opera wrote:On August 16 2012 22:11 itsjustatank wrote:On August 16 2012 22:09 DwD wrote:
he is promoted to the Ecuadorian U.N representative so he can travel freely. Depending on how far the UK wants to go, not even 'international law' can save Assange. Ecuador annouced they'll do whatever it takes to prevent UK Police entering their embassy. That's a lot of bluster coming from a small nation relative to the UK. Funnily enough, neither of them can project enough power to invade the other though. Locally though, the UK has superior special forces units versus Ecuadorean embassy guards; it won't even be close. Using violence to extract Assange from the embassy would be a really bad decision though. Not even the Chinese government tried to enter the US Embassy to arrest the Chinese dissident Chen Guangchen. The power relations between the US and the PRC are way different from the power relations between the UK and Ecuador. China, while a de facto regional hegemon, knows that any potential conflict with the United States, in both hard and soft terms, will be highly damaging, making it against their national interest to do what you suggest to the American embassy. I'm not exactly sure what the calculation behind an assault would entail, but I'm willing to bet the UK feels that it is in their interest to blow off Ecuadorian protests and extraterritorial status to get Assange because there's simply not much downside to it. It would still be a violation of international laws. And for a so-called democracy to be the first to do so is quite a big deal. Especially knowing that it's pressure from the US which could trigger such an action.
It really isn't. The United States does it all the time. No one calls them out (militarily or economically) on it. States act in their self-interest, and only accede to international law when it suits them.
For example look at the Syria crisis. Clearly international laws are not being followed, and the international community supposedly has 'a responsibility to protect' civilians from being harmed. However, military intervention goes against Russian and, to a smaller extent, Chinese military and economic interests; and thus they block international organizations from taking action there.
|
On August 16 2012 22:38 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 22:35 Greentellon wrote:
Even China respected US embassy when the Chinese dissent was hiding inside it. Good call, Equador! Respect +10 points. Equating Ecuador with the UK as power equals is a bad assumption.
So in your opinion, laws and agreements can be just ignore when you want, if you have the power?
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
On August 16 2012 22:39 Greentellon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 22:38 itsjustatank wrote:On August 16 2012 22:35 Greentellon wrote:
Even China respected US embassy when the Chinese dissent was hiding inside it. Good call, Equador! Respect +10 points. Equating Ecuador with the UK as power equals is a bad assumption. So in your opinion, international laws and agreements can be just ignore when you want, if you have the power?
Yep. This is how states work. International law regimes only have force when states are willing to use force to enforce them.
|
So if both sides want a diplomatic solution, then its still hard to find a consensus on opposing opinions. So, they could have some kind of trade agreement. I give you Assange and you give me something else... But that might let one state look weak and they don't want that. They cannot make any compromise imho. Like "You get Assange 2 years and I the rest of the time" ore so. ^^
I don't see a solution and I do think that with what has been said it looks more like confrontation. UK Police in that case will arrest Assange and send him to Sweden. And all that probably without real force, because the diplomats are not going to shoot first, are they? Are they going into the embassy, or are they going to arrest him on his way to the airport? I don't know, I don't think it would make any big legal difference as stated earlier (anyone know if that is true?). Only symbolically it is a bit harsher, if they went into the embassy, rather than stopping a diplomats car. But hey, maybe they get another solution that I don't see right now.
|
On August 16 2012 22:40 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 22:39 Greentellon wrote:On August 16 2012 22:38 itsjustatank wrote:On August 16 2012 22:35 Greentellon wrote:
Even China respected US embassy when the Chinese dissent was hiding inside it. Good call, Equador! Respect +10 points. Equating Ecuador with the UK as power equals is a bad assumption. So in your opinion, international laws and agreements can be just ignore when you want, if you have the power? Yep. This is how states work. International law regimes only have force when states are willing to use force to enforce them.
Unfortunately that seems to be a general attitude among populace of certain countries. I will remember that when dealing with them in the future.
|
On August 16 2012 22:40 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 22:39 Greentellon wrote:On August 16 2012 22:38 itsjustatank wrote:On August 16 2012 22:35 Greentellon wrote:
Even China respected US embassy when the Chinese dissent was hiding inside it. Good call, Equador! Respect +10 points. Equating Ecuador with the UK as power equals is a bad assumption. So in your opinion, international laws and agreements can be just ignore when you want, if you have the power? Yep. This is how states work. International law regimes only have force when states are willing to use force to enforce them.
mehh....
I mean technically US lost a lawsuit against Mexico for some trade policy US was violating but they essentially gave a "fuck you" to Mexico and did nothing until they were pressured by other countries to follow through
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
On August 16 2012 22:44 Greentellon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 22:40 itsjustatank wrote:On August 16 2012 22:39 Greentellon wrote:On August 16 2012 22:38 itsjustatank wrote:On August 16 2012 22:35 Greentellon wrote:
Even China respected US embassy when the Chinese dissent was hiding inside it. Good call, Equador! Respect +10 points. Equating Ecuador with the UK as power equals is a bad assumption. So in your opinion, international laws and agreements can be just ignore when you want, if you have the power? Yep. This is how states work. International law regimes only have force when states are willing to use force to enforce them. Unfortunately that seems to be a general attitude among populace of certain countries. I will remember that selfishness when dealing with them in the future.
Well if you can come to power and change power calculations by making your state strong and global enough, I'll be very impressed.
The attitude of the populace of a country doesn't matter. All self-preserving countries act like this because it is rational.
|
My respect for Ecuador jumped 1000 times.
|
On August 16 2012 22:44 Greentellon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 22:40 itsjustatank wrote:On August 16 2012 22:39 Greentellon wrote:On August 16 2012 22:38 itsjustatank wrote:On August 16 2012 22:35 Greentellon wrote:
Even China respected US embassy when the Chinese dissent was hiding inside it. Good call, Equador! Respect +10 points. Equating Ecuador with the UK as power equals is a bad assumption. So in your opinion, international laws and agreements can be just ignore when you want, if you have the power? Yep. This is how states work. International law regimes only have force when states are willing to use force to enforce them. Unfortunately that seems to be a general attitude among populace of certain countries. I will remember that when dealing with them in the future.
it's common in ONE country in particular that doesn't even accept the international human rights court and doesn't care about international laws in general even if all other countries respect it.
disgusting survival of the fittest attitude.
|
On August 16 2012 22:46 mdb wrote:
My respect for Ecuador jumped 1000 times.
Don't forget that Ecuador essientially did so to piss off the USA. The country is no free speech heaven. Journalists and political opponents are thrown in jail for fallacious reasons.
|
On August 16 2012 22:39 Greentellon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 22:38 itsjustatank wrote:On August 16 2012 22:35 Greentellon wrote:
Even China respected US embassy when the Chinese dissent was hiding inside it. Good call, Equador! Respect +10 points. Equating Ecuador with the UK as power equals is a bad assumption. So in your opinion, laws and agreements can be just ignore when you want, if you have the power?
No one can enforce international law so of course it will be broken when leaders see it fit to do so.
|
Respect for Ecuador and especially their president!!
Assange is so lucky btw that hes THAT famous, because if not , his trip to ecuador could have some "accidents".
Still not 100% at ease though, he really made a lot , and powerful, enemies.
|
On August 16 2012 22:35 Greentellon wrote:
Even China respected US embassy when the Chinese dissent was hiding inside it. Good call, Equador! Respect +10 points.
We passed a law in 1987 that allows the UK Government to revoke embassy privileges after a policeman was shot dead by a bullet fired from inside the Libyan embassy.
One of the other concerns was terrorism planned from inside an embassy.
Although the media are playing up the fact we "could" invade the embassy. I find it highly unlikely that that will happen.
Ministers would have to argue at the High Court that this was a viable application of the law; something completely unprecedented that would send a ripple around the world affecting embassy protection everywhere.
It's obvious America is applying a lot of political pressure on the UK to get Assange but it doesn't seem possible.
Assange can essentially hide in the embassy indefinitely and there is a precedence for this; it's happened before.
If he ever tries to leave he will be swiftly arrested.
|
On August 16 2012 22:51 hugman wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 22:39 Greentellon wrote:On August 16 2012 22:38 itsjustatank wrote:On August 16 2012 22:35 Greentellon wrote:
Even China respected US embassy when the Chinese dissent was hiding inside it. Good call, Equador! Respect +10 points. Equating Ecuador with the UK as power equals is a bad assumption. So in your opinion, laws and agreements can be just ignore when you want, if you have the power? No one can enforce international law so of course it will be broken when leaders see it fit to do so.
international law gets enforced by the countries that signed the treaty... if one member breaks the law the other members will sanction them.
there are some vague laws that countries interpret differently but what you say is just plain wrong. if a country doesn't care about an international law it just doesn't sign the treaty... otherwise those laws wouldn't even exist, because they are useless.
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
On August 16 2012 23:04 fleeze wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 22:51 hugman wrote:On August 16 2012 22:39 Greentellon wrote:On August 16 2012 22:38 itsjustatank wrote:On August 16 2012 22:35 Greentellon wrote:
Even China respected US embassy when the Chinese dissent was hiding inside it. Good call, Equador! Respect +10 points. Equating Ecuador with the UK as power equals is a bad assumption. So in your opinion, laws and agreements can be just ignore when you want, if you have the power? No one can enforce international law so of course it will be broken when leaders see it fit to do so. international law gets enforced by the countries that signed the treaty... if one member breaks the law the other members will sanction them. there are some vague laws that countries interpret differently but what you say is just plain wrong. if a country doesn't care about an international law it just doesn't sign the treaty... otherwise those laws wouldn't even exist, because they are useless.
What are sanctions? Are those the things the UN places on Syria to get them to stop massacring civilians every week or so? The ones we place on North Korea to affect regime change? The ones the US placed on Cuba to get them to turn away from Communism? The ones the US and the EU placed on Iran to get them to stop their nuclear program? Not one of those instances show sanctions working.
The only sanction that can effectively enforce international law is military use of force and the threat of such use.
Also in this case, the only 'international law' that exists is the relationship between Ecuador and the UK, and while neither of them can go to war with the other because of power projection incapability, the UK holds all of the cards locally.
|
On August 16 2012 23:09 itsjustatank wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 23:04 fleeze wrote:On August 16 2012 22:51 hugman wrote:On August 16 2012 22:39 Greentellon wrote:On August 16 2012 22:38 itsjustatank wrote:On August 16 2012 22:35 Greentellon wrote:
Even China respected US embassy when the Chinese dissent was hiding inside it. Good call, Equador! Respect +10 points. Equating Ecuador with the UK as power equals is a bad assumption. So in your opinion, laws and agreements can be just ignore when you want, if you have the power? No one can enforce international law so of course it will be broken when leaders see it fit to do so. international law gets enforced by the countries that signed the treaty... if one member breaks the law the other members will sanction them. there are some vague laws that countries interpret differently but what you say is just plain wrong. if a country doesn't care about an international law it just doesn't sign the treaty... otherwise those laws wouldn't even exist, because they are useless. What are sanctions? Are those the things we place on Syria to get them to stop massacring civilians every week or so? The only sanction that can enforce international law is military use of force.
what a fucking stupid example. but expected as i saw your name.
the topic is about embassys and the law protecting them. so how about you come up with a fitting one?
if britain doesn't respect embassy status, do you think other countries will accept theirs?
|
On August 16 2012 23:00 Klive5ive wrote:
It's obvious America is applying a lot of political pressure on the UK ...
What makes you think the US is applying any pressure? Sweden wants to prosecute Assange for alleged sex crimes and the UK wants to extradite him. These aren't political decisions, they're just standard steps that any nation would take.
Ecuador is getting involved to try to piss off the Americans -- but do the Americans even care about Assange anymore? Somehow I think Barack Obama has other things on his mind...
|
Hong Kong9179 Posts
On August 16 2012 23:14 fleeze wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 23:09 itsjustatank wrote:On August 16 2012 23:04 fleeze wrote:On August 16 2012 22:51 hugman wrote:On August 16 2012 22:39 Greentellon wrote:On August 16 2012 22:38 itsjustatank wrote:On August 16 2012 22:35 Greentellon wrote:
Even China respected US embassy when the Chinese dissent was hiding inside it. Good call, Equador! Respect +10 points. Equating Ecuador with the UK as power equals is a bad assumption. So in your opinion, laws and agreements can be just ignore when you want, if you have the power? No one can enforce international law so of course it will be broken when leaders see it fit to do so. international law gets enforced by the countries that signed the treaty... if one member breaks the law the other members will sanction them. there are some vague laws that countries interpret differently but what you say is just plain wrong. if a country doesn't care about an international law it just doesn't sign the treaty... otherwise those laws wouldn't even exist, because they are useless. What are sanctions? Are those the things we place on Syria to get them to stop massacring civilians every week or so? The only sanction that can enforce international law is military use of force. what a fucking stupid example. but expected as i saw your name. the topic is about embassys and the law protecting them. so how about you come up with a fitting one? if britain doesn't respect embassy status, do you think other countries will accept theirs?
As it stands the UK can de facto and de jure do whatever they want to the Ecuadorean diplomatic mission.
|
On August 16 2012 23:14 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2012 23:00 Klive5ive wrote:
It's obvious America is applying a lot of political pressure on the UK ...
What makes you think the US is applying any pressure? Sweden wants to prosecute Assange for alleged sex crimes and the UK wants to extradite him. These aren't political decisions, they're just standard steps that any nation would take. Ecuador is getting involved to try to piss off the Americans -- but do the Americans even care about Assange anymore? Somehow I think Barack Obama has other things on his mind...
so why exactly couldn't sweden assure ecuador that they won't give assange to the USA then?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
