| ▲ | fmajid 10 months ago |
| Netanyahu and Gallant will no longer be able to travel to Europe, and likely will not want to fly over Europe either (thus not to the US either). |
|
| ▲ | tzs 10 months ago | parent | next [-] |
| If they just wanted to hop on a regular commercial flight to the US that might be a problem, but I'd expect they would fly on military aircraft. Instead of taking the most direct route which would fly over Europe they could stay over the Mediterranean until they reach the Atlantic and then head straight to the US. That adds about 500 miles or so to the trip which probably isn't a big deal on a trip that long. |
| |
| ▲ | ben_w 10 months ago | parent [-] | | Now I'm wondering if airspace spreads out horizontally from the coast the same way that shipping rights do. I'd assume so, but a quick skim-read didn't tell me either way. If it does, then they'd pick between going through Spanish or Moroccan airspace, because the straights of Gibraltar are narrow enough you can see Africa from Gibraltar. | | |
| ▲ | tzs 10 months ago | parent | next [-] | | From what I've read, under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea when you have things like that strait where it is the only reasonable route between two bodies of international water ships and planes that are traveling between those two bodies have the right to pass through unimpeded. If you want to do something other than just a continuous and expeditious passage through the strait than you do need permission from the bordering countries and have to obey their rules. But if you are just going straight (no pun intended) through then it legally counts as being on the high seas all the way through. | | |
| ▲ | geysersam 10 months ago | parent [-] | | ~That's certainly a misunderstanding. The law of the sea doesn't provide right of passage to wanted people or illegal cargo etc.~ Edit: I stand corrected. Narcotics are excluded, but other illicit cargo, or wanted passengers, is not reason enough to hinder passage. |
| |
| ▲ | shiroiushi 10 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | They should build a dam across the strait. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | zeroonetwothree 10 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Presumably if they get invited to Europe it will be with assurance from the state that nothing happens to them. And traveling uninvited is probably a bad move anyway. So not much difference. If you mean to imply that Europe is somehow going to shoot down their planes if they fly over that’s obviously absurd. |
| |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 10 months ago | parent | next [-] | | > If you mean to imply that Europe is somehow going to shoot down their planes if they fly over that’s obviously absurd. Shoot down? No. Force them down? There's precedent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident | | |
| ▲ | jojobas 10 months ago | parent | next [-] | | Morales's plane was not forced down, it wasn't allowed in some airspaces and requested landing due to instrumentation issues; it also wasn't searched. One can also fly from Israel to NY over international waters only adding some 400km to the route. | | |
| ▲ | Qem 10 months ago | parent | next [-] | | You'd must pray no emergency landing is ever needed. Probably too much of a risk to take chances. | | |
| ▲ | fmajid 10 months ago | parent [-] | | Specially when half the Israeli population hates your guts (probably a higher proportion among secular Israelis who are likely over-represented among aircraft maintenance personnel) and could accidentally on purpose forget a spanner in the jet engine... |
| |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 10 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | > One can also fly from Israel to NY over international waters only adding some 400km to the route. No, you can't. You'd go through either Spanish or Moroccan airspace; the strait is 7.7 nautical miles across. | | |
| ▲ | tzs 10 months ago | parent | next [-] | | From what I've read the Strait of Gibraltar is covered by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which guarantees ships and planes that are just traveling through to get from one area of international waters to another area of international waters the right to do so without interference. | |
| ▲ | jki275 10 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | Definitely does not work that way. |
|
| |
| ▲ | raxxorraxor 10 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | fastasucan 10 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You will find that you'll get much better discussions if you do some introspection on how you might misinterpret someone when you think someone says something that you think is 'obviously absurd'. Why would they say something that is obviously absurd? Maybe it is more revealing that you jump to the obviously absurd interpretation rather than the even more obvious, and not absurd one? | |
| ▲ | KK7NIL 10 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Presumably if they get invited to Europe it will be with assurance from the state that nothing happens to them. I believe ICC members are obligated to enforce its warrants, which is why Putin couldn't attend BRICS in South Africa last year.
And this applies to almost all the western world: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court So no, it's not toothless. | | |
| ▲ | fmajid 10 months ago | parent [-] | | Putin went to Mongolia, which is a signatory to the Rome statute establishing the ICC, without being arrested. President Orbán of Hungary also extended an open invitation to Netanyahu despite the ICC arrest warrant, but he isnt' exactly known for being a stickler for the rule of law. |
| |
| ▲ | DeepSeaTortoise 10 months ago | parent | prev [-] | | "Invitations" for government officials are pretty much invitations in name only. Many of the emails of Assad and his government have been leaked and show in great detail how various governments interact with each other. And how Assad ran his country by forwarding NYT articles... |
|
|
| ▲ | andrewinardeer 10 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Why not the US? The aren't signatories to the ICC. |
| |
|
| ▲ | Alupis 10 months ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
