What gives NATO members’ the right to seize or freeze the assets of Russian oligarchs? Can any citizens be held personally responsible for the actions of their country?
I found this:
It’s called war and diplomacy, not that wars get declared any more. During total war, factories or even entire cities could get blown up or set on fire. I don’t know if there was much of a “legal basis” for that either. Russia has essentially declared war on Ukraine, an ally of the United States. The US can apply whatever sanctions it wants and get away with it because it’s more powerful than Russia, but the US won’t go to war with Russia because Russia has nukes.
The question came up in the GD thread on “Sanctions on Russia for invading Ukraine”. Here’s what I posted:
Presumably, these will be challenged.
I think Ukraine is a nation friendly to the United States, not an ally. Allies would have some kind of mutual defense pact in place, or have war declared on them both by the same parties.
But where, and to what effect?
I can’t see the various oligarchs suing the US government in a US court anytime soon.
Similarly other countries party to the sanctions. You need a court with jurisdiction and teeth to enforce compliance. When it come to war, those are a bit thin on the ground.
International law is enforced by convention and has little to no actual teeth. Not when a nation decides to ignore it.
On what basis?
I assume the assets too can be frozen with the implication that these oligarchs are in some way participating in the rulership of the Russian Federation, so therefore their assets may be frozen in anticipation of them personally liable and being sued by Ukraine to assist in war reparations. Someone’s going to have to pay to repair the Ukrainian infrastructure, so I expect there’s a chance that a lot of the Russian oil and gas money will also be going toward that when Russia signs a peace treaty and Putin is replaced.
I don’t think Russia will get away with saying “Oops, my bad…” and walking away from Ukraine. I don’t think the west will tolerate anything less than full reparations to lift sanctions, and who better to help pay for all this than the Russians who got rich looting their own country. Will it start with Putin throwing the oligarchs under the bus to try to save himself? If there is social upheaval in Russia from blowback from the war in Ukraine, it won’t go well for anyone near the top of the heap.
Street demonstrations overflowed into the breakup of the USSR, and I expect the same in a few months. Some general(s) will take out Putin, and then discover that is not enough to satisfy the people, and they don’t have the willing manpower to suppress country-wide revolt.
It sounds like the answer is that long-standing canon of schoolyard jurisprudence, “Might makes right”
Also the “500-pound gorilla” corollary.
Not really. The oligarchs are the de facto ruling class of Russia. They use those funds to give money to Russia. Sanctions would be useless if they couldn’t be enacted against those who fund Russia, keeping them from sending money to Russia. It’s not really that different than keeping companies from sending money to Russia to buy things from them. And that’s what sanctions are.
Legally, any assets that are used to fund an illegal operation can be frozen. And Russia’s war is illegal by International Law.
I think it’s the opposite; the source of their wealth is the money they’ve stolen from Russia, with the cooperation of Putin and his government. This article quotes a 2017 study that estimates that in 2015, the oligarchs held $800 billion in overseas wealth, or about three times the official foreign reserves.
This seems like an idea someone would make up because “it just makes sense”. Who’s law? What do you mean by illegal and legal? Who’s the judge? Why are they the judge?
The only international law is death. Who is willing and capable of destroying until there is nothing left.
It’s not international law in issue here. It is national law, and laws of the European Union. Governments can pass laws. That’s what they do.
Correct. For example, you can find the various pieces of legislation and Executive Orders relating to the sanctions put in place due to Russia/Ukraine relations here (going back to 2014):
The most recent EO is here (pdf):
ETA: So, in general, if France (for example) seizes some assets of Roman Abromovich, his legal recourse would be to the courts in France (unless it was under EU law, then I suppose it would go to EU courts).
Yes, I quoted the most current EU legislation from the Council in post 3 of this thread.
AIUI, EU law and courts aren’t a separate jurisdiction (unlike the US state/federal distinction). Once the member states and the Parliament agree a law, it then goes into the member states’ national laws, and their courts apply it. The only time an EU-level court gets involved is when there’s some dispute as to whether a member state isn’t applying the law properly