• EU may buy French warships built for Russia
    27 replies, posted
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Xey1NBf.png[/IMG] [url]http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2014/08/04/EU-may-buy-French-warships-built-for-Russia/4611407166678/[/url]
Certainly wouldn't be a bad idea to keep them here. With the whole "the EU doesn't do enough to put pressure on Russia" thing going in, this might add a little to it.
Hmm, it makes a certain amount of sense but France is still obligated by contract to deliver warships to Russia. If they don't, Russia could sue France out of the ass for breach of contract.
damn, that's a very expensive coast
[QUOTE=deltasquid;45597747]Hmm, it makes a certain amount of sense but France is still obligated by contract to deliver warships to Russia. If they don't, Russia could sue France out of the ass for breach of contract.[/QUOTE] They will be blocked by every court, because "sanctions"
So the EU will cease to purely be an economic and political union and acquire some kind of federal military? EU skeptics and anti war folks will go bonkers.
[QUOTE=deltasquid;45597747]Hmm, it makes a certain amount of sense but France is still obligated by contract to deliver warships to Russia. If they don't, Russia could sue France out of the ass for breach of contract.[/QUOTE] Suing another country doesn't usually work out too well because there isn't always enforcement like there would be with people. Especially in this case since the only authority over France would be the EU, and they are the ones doing this in the first place.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;45597817]So the EU will cease to purely be an economic and political union and acquire some kind of federal military? EU skeptics and anti war folks will go bonkers.[/QUOTE] in no time there will be Nigel Farage who will claim that the only reason EU wants warships is to invade the UK
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;45597837]Suing another country doesn't usually work out too well because there isn't always enforcement like there would be with people. Especially in this case since the only authority over France would be the EU, and they are the ones doing this in the first place.[/QUOTE] This would put off Russia, possibly china and any other questionably regarded country from ever buying french warships/hardware again though wouldn't it?
[QUOTE]Two warships are being built for Russia at a coast of $1.6 billion.[/QUOTE] That is an expensive coast.
[QUOTE=Turing;45597854]in no time there will be Nigel Farage who will claim that the only reason EU wants warships is to invade the UK[/QUOTE] "they want those ships to enforce their laws on us, 112% of our laws come from europe, they want to push it up by 30% to 120%, statistics are UKIP party estimates from figures taken from germany in 1999"
But if they're being built on contract to Russia wouldn't it be purchasing stolen goods as the ships are technically property of the Russian Federation seeing as they've already been payed for.
[QUOTE=DrAkcel;45597801]They will be blocked by every court, because "sanctions"[/QUOTE] The international court of Justice should be neutral in the affair, and I don't think sanctions are a good argument to do away with the Pacta Sunt Servanda rule which is applicable in international law. Though I suppose one could argue in favour of France as well, since the relation of trust between the countries and the circumstances changed dramatically. It could go either way. [editline]5th August 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;45597817]So the EU will cease to purely be an economic and political union and acquire some kind of federal military? EU skeptics and anti war folks will go bonkers.[/QUOTE] No, it seems the EU will simply help one of its member states buy the ships for themselves, not acquire it as an EU army. Besides, the EU already has a (admittedly tiny) Eurocorps.
[QUOTE=Greg25kk;45597937]But if they're being built on contract to Russia wouldn't it be purchasing stolen goods as the ships are technically property of the Russian Federation seeing as they've already been payed for.[/QUOTE] iirc they havent paid for it yet
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;45597817]So the EU will cease to purely be an economic and political union and acquire some kind of federal military? EU skeptics and anti war folks will go bonkers.[/QUOTE] The EU has long had a "federal military" or provisions for it. [code] The Treaty of Lisbon also states that: “ The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of the common defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides. (TEU, Article 42)[/code] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocorps[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Defence_Agency[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Security_and_Defence_Identity[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Military_Staff[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Battlegroup[/url] [editline]5th August 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=deltasquid;45597961]The international court of Justice should be neutral in the affair, and I don't think sanctions are a good argument to do away with the Pacta Sunt Servanda rule which is applicable in international law. Though I suppose one could argue in favour of France as well, since the relation of trust between the countries and the circumstances changed dramatically. It could go either way. [editline]5th August 2014[/editline] No, it seems the EU will simply help one of its member states buy the ships for themselves, not acquire it as an EU army. Besides, the EU already has a (admittedly tiny) Eurocorps.[/QUOTE] Pacta sunt servanda could be breached trough rebus sic stantibus not to mention I believe there's a lot of cases before where such limitations were without an issue.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;45598507]The EU has long had a "federal military" or provisions for it. [code] The Treaty of Lisbon also states that: “ The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of the common defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides. (TEU, Article 42)[/code] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocorps[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Defence_Agency[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Security_and_Defence_Identity[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Military_Staff[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_Battlegroup[/url] [editline]5th August 2014[/editline] Pacta sunt servanda could be breached trough rebus sic stantibus not to mention I believe there's a lot of cases before where such limitations were without an issue.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but rebus sic stantibus only applies for essential aspects. E.g. a river drying up would make any treaty regarding that river pointless. It's a moot point though because any judge deciding over this would commit a suicide for his career if he rules against the EU.
[QUOTE=Turing;45598203]iirc they havent paid for it yet[/QUOTE] Yes they have. The ships can be built in Russia, and Russia has already acquired the sensitive nato fleet management technology. France would get sued out the ass too.
[QUOTE=laserguided;45598657]Yes they have. The ships can be built in Russia, and Russia has already acquired the sensitive nato fleet management technology. France would get sued out the ass too.[/QUOTE] France can just give the money to Russia and nobody loses anything. No suing, no bullshit.
[QUOTE=ViralHatred;45598823]France can just give the money to Russia and nobody loses anything. No suing, no bullshit.[/QUOTE] It depends on the conditions of the contract, it may be more difficult than that to cancel.
[QUOTE=ViralHatred;45598823]France can just give the money to Russia and nobody loses anything. No suing, no bullshit.[/QUOTE] Check out the contract for S-300's between Iran and Russia. Russia decided not to fullfil it and Iran was perusing legal actions despite un sanctions. Russia ended up folding and sending alternative weaponry.
This is reminding me of 1914 when the UK took a few Ottoman Empires battleships that they were building for them. One of the reasons why the Ottoman Empire joined the central powers 100 years ago. Concerning.
[QUOTE=Angus725;45599034]This is reminding me of 1914 when the UK took a few Ottoman Empires battleships that they were building for them. One of the reasons why the Ottoman Empire joined the central powers 100 years ago. Concerning.[/QUOTE] Russia is literally the central powers.
[QUOTE=ViralHatred;45598823]France can just give the money to Russia and nobody loses anything. No suing, no bullshit.[/QUOTE] That only works in common law systems, not in civil law nor international law. Unless your contract states otherwise, you aren't allowed to give a monetary alternative or a substitute without the other party's consent.
Isn't this part of how WW1 started? A couple of battleships that were bought and paid for by the Ottoman Empire were seized by Britain and commissioned? It's a wonder anybody trusts europeans to build warships for them.
[QUOTE=deltasquid;45598559]Yeah, but rebus sic stantibus only applies for essential aspects. E.g. a river drying up would make any treaty regarding that river pointless. It's a moot point though because any judge deciding over this would commit a suicide for his career if he rules against the EU.[/QUOTE] It's not just essential aspects - political changes can encompass rebus sic stantibus - for instance a new found will to protect the environment. Was an argument in gabcikov-nagyaamos. Though I don't completely remember the resolution for that. Not sure anymore who won. [QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;45602296]Isn't this part of how WW1 started? A couple of battleships that were bought and paid for by the Ottoman Empire were seized by Britain and commissioned? It's a wonder anybody trusts europeans to build warships for them.[/QUOTE] The mistrals haven't been paid for yet. [QUOTE=deltasquid;45599350]That only works in common law systems, not in civil law nor international law. Unless your contract states otherwise, you aren't allowed to give a monetary alternative or a substitute without the other party's consent.[/QUOTE] Well as long as you're avoiding the Vienna pact, international law is closer to common law systems than continental. Though the iudicature is quite rich these days. The real crux is, that the majority of the contract is probably sealed and nonpublic. So we don't actually know of the obligations either side has or if they have whatever chance to not fullfill.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;45602322]It's not just essential aspects - political changes can encompass rebus sic stantibus - for instance a new found will to protect the environment. Was an argument in gabcikov-nagyaamos. Though I don't completely remember the resolution for that. Not sure anymore who won. The mistrals haven't been paid for yet. Well as long as you're avoiding the Vienna pact, international law is closer to common law systems than continental. Though the iudicature is quite rich these days. The real crux is, that the majority of the contract is probably sealed and nonpublic. So we don't actually know of the obligations either side has or if they have whatever chance to not fullfill.[/QUOTE] I don't think there's a ruling in that case yet, so maybe political changes will be considered in jurisprudence. i doubt it though, it would allow for a lot of uncertainty and whimsical acting by nations to get out of contracts. And yeah I pretty much always assume I should use the Vienna pact because it's almost always relevant in cases concerning Belgium. Not sure if both France and Russia abide by it.
[QUOTE=deltasquid;45597747]Hmm, it makes a certain amount of sense but France is still obligated by contract to deliver warships to Russia. If they don't, Russia could sue France out of the ass for breach of contract.[/QUOTE] If there are sanctions in place then I don't think breach of contract is an issue. [editline]5th August 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;45597817]So the EU will cease to purely be an economic and political union and acquire some kind of federal military? EU skeptics and anti war folks will go bonkers.[/QUOTE] The EU has a common security and defence policy, its pretty militaristic. There has been military action "under" the banner of the EU. Admittedly not directly by the EU. I'm not sure how I feel about this to be honest, on the one hand it could do a lot of good but at the same time an EU military seems like a crazy idea. Perhaps it would just be a time share, with each nation getting it for a few weeks a year.
[QUOTE=Joazzz;45597776]damn, that's a very expensive coast[/QUOTE] Just shot the author an email about that, let's see if he responds :v:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.