Remix clone Hacker News

Is there any actual evidence that this is an act of war? Comments on Hacker News and reddit are not evidence. Act of war by a civilian Chinese tanker (not Chinese military vessel) against whom?

▲

shaboinkin 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Recent events suggest dismissing sabotage as a likely cause would be foolish.

10:13 presents details involving sabotage throughout Europe as well as states choosing to not disclose to their public about the nature of what is happening to avoid spooking their citizens https://youtu.be/6KVnJqaBsnk?t=613&si=8lgB4A7x2fSmJC4N

NATO’s Admiral Rob Bauer discusses what he is at liberty to disclose to Arctic nations https://youtu.be/DjpALbzKdJM?si=b4uU2KZ18JlNW5wf

I’m willing to trust what he’s saying verses online discourse where individuals will never have the level of insight as someone in his position.

▲

killingtime74 5 days ago | parent [-]

Yes but he's not a lawyer. We're not talking about military strategy. Sabotage is not necessarily an act of war. Sabotage can also be simple crime. Crime is not excluded from insurance payouts.

Think about the MV Dali that crashed into the bridge in Baltimore. Was that an act of war by Singapore against the United states? Six people actually died in that case.

	▲	lazide 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Sabotage committed by a foreign power could be considered an act of war though…. Who would claim what depends on who benefits from what type of claim, I expect.

▲

mandevil 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That's why I said it would be interesting to see how insurance companies decide on this. The insurance companies definitely would want this to be considered an act of war, I would expect, so they wouldn't have to pay out. But an act of war against a NATO country would be a much bigger deal, so I would expect that the governments of the necessary countries to not want this to be considered one and we'll have to wait and see what shakes out from all of this.

UNCLOS Article 113 seems to say (to this non-lawyer) that the merchant ship operating country is responsible for punishment, and the only protection is if the mariners can prove that they "acted merely with the legitimate object of saving their lives or their ships, after having taken all necessary precautions to avoid such break or injury." Article 114 says that the merchant ship owner is responsible for the cost of repairs.

So that means, if it can be proven that Yi Peng 3 was responsible for this, then it's going to be on the Ningbo Yipeng Shipping Company to pay, and the PRC to punish. From what I have been able to find, that is a small shipping company with just two ships, one of which is currently unable to operate due to being stuck in the Kattegat. I suspect that means that not much money would be available from that direction, and so I wonder if the insurance companies would be on the hook for whatever excess costs are born by the various companies.

	▲	killingtime74 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		I think you're conclusions are correct that it's most likely shipping company/insurance would have to pay. If there's no money I think usually they seize the ships and sell them.

▲

lazide 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

There are multiple contexts at play here. It’s ambiguous, and multiple parties want to keep it that way for their own reasons.

Russia/China/US would I’m sure like to keep plausible deniability here, as it minimizes outright repercussions (for everyone), while still keeping the option on the table for them to tit-for-tat.

It wouldn’t surprise me if any insurance involved (which surely wouldn’t pay out in event of war) would want to claim it was an act of war.

Anyone trying to claim against such insurance would want to claim it wasn’t an act of war (just a mistake), so they could get the payout.