mutantsushi wrote:AFAIK that is not true, the sanctions don't impede existing contracts. It's just political pressure from US, EU etc, because it would "look bad".
I believe each member state is supposed to set it's own penalties for violating sanctions, and they could set that as low as they wished, but again, political pressure to play along.
Everything on this list is banned...
And this list...
The list of relevant goods was not the issue, but rather whether sanctions impeded existing contracts (of those goods) or not...
The item lists you quoted reference the base Code of Conduct for Arms Exports, which states: (per EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports)
An export licence should be refused if approval would be inconsistent with, inter alia: (a)the international obligations of Member States and their commitments to enforce UN, OSCE and EU arms embargoes;
Likewise, per thisCouncil document:
Selected denial criteria for conventional arms trade (EU Code of Conduct)
1) EU Member States will not issue export licences when they contravene the international commitments, such as sanctions decided by the UN Security Council and the Community, agreement on non proliferation or similar made by the Member State. Furthermore an export license should be refused if approval would be inconsistent with (...)
When the Mistral's export licence was already previously approved, so CoCoAE preventing granting of export licences doesn't matter.
Beyond that, numerous sources repeat that the Russian sanctions specifically didn't impede existing contracts, allowing not only Mistral deals, but not impeding ongoing service/parts contracts for Eastern EU members with Soviet military hardware:
After tense negotiations, France succeeded in getting existing contracts excluded from the European Union's package of sanctions against Russia over its role in supporting rebels in eastern Ukraine. At the time, French President François Hollande told reporters:
The Russians have paid. We would have to repay €1.1 billion [if they were not delivered] ... at this stage, there are no sanctions imposed that would oblige us to renounce [the contract].
The sanctions would not prevent EU member states from honouring existing contracts, a decision that will enable France to complete the delivery of two Mistral warships commissioned by Russia. Dalia Grybauskaitė, Lithuania’s president, immediately tweeted her unhappiness, writing: “Welcome EU decision on a wide range of sanctions on Russia. Unfortunately nothing to stop the deal of Mistral yet.”
If Dalia "The Anti-Putin" is saying there is no legal impediment to Mistral deal, are you really going to argue with her?
I've seen absolutely nothing since then to suggest any change has occured in that matter of law, only a shift in French public diplomatic position, i.e. due to political pressure from US/et al.
If you HAVE seen such a change in the legal regime, I'd be interested to see it, that would be 10x more relevant than bringing up the sanctioned goods list.
Regardless, arbitration tribunals in similar cases have refused to negate contracts because of arms sanctions,
so Russia should easily be able to win contractual costs & damages, not sure if costs like dock construction/training will be covered, but I've read that the contract includes penalties (beyond lateness) which may effectively cover other costs of Russia's.
Swiss arbitration courts can't necessarily enforce payment within French jurisdiction, but they certainly should be able to within Switzerland where I'm sure France keeps/transits many accounts,
and in any case, France would be liable, and would thus need to pay up in full whenever relations wtih Russia do clear up.