• intelshill@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    And a rapidly destabilizing situation in the SCS.

    And contention over the Essequibo.

    Edit: by terrorism, you must mean the unilateral military action taken on by the US and UK without UNSC authorization, right?

    • Raiderkev@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      I guess they got taken off the official terrorist designation in 2021, but they’re trying to redesignate them, so idk, semantics.

    • cbarrick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      unilateral […] US and UK

      How is it unilateral if two countries are coordinated?

      (Yes, I’m being pedantic. My apologies.)

      Also, it’s not the job of the UNSC to “authorize” military action of individual nations. UNSC authorization of force (Article 42) refers to sending UN peacekeeping forces, like in the Korean war. This hasn’t happened many times.

      Article 51 allows member states to use force to defend themselves. US and UK military ships were being attacked.

      • intelshill@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        International law also allows a country to protect its own territorial waters and enforce sanctions through them. Sovereignty supercedes the right to self-defence: if a US warship sails into Chinese territorial waters and gets beat down, international law sides with China.

        • cbarrick@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          What was the location of the US and UK ships? What are the treaties governing access to the Red Sea?

          Are you sure that counts as territorial waters for Yemen?