sepheronx wrote:Legality is worth the paper it's written on. That debt will not transfer and the previous holders go bust.
You will find out for yourself as your Portugal laws will not transfer to Russia.
Essentially EU elligally froze Russian assets too and broke countless international laws. They aren't being punished for it.
Like I said, won't happen. And we will stick it there. Your law degree is useless when it comes to war.
If it was the case, UK would need to pay back India trillions in theft. Hasn't happened and never will
As I said, you can look for your self at actual decisions on worldwide recognized (including the ones Russia is part, UNSC decisions for instance) specialized sources in regards to International Law. If you don't want, this is with you.
I have no idea where and how the Portuguese Law got in this thread, unless you think lawyers working in international courts have some kind of "International Citizenship". They are lawyers of some country, and countries with long diplomatic tradition like Portugal have their own specialized lawyers or have it builtin in their diplomatic teams - or use both depending on the specific scenario. This is the country who decide if someone is can or cannot defend it.
Why do you think the subject of the frozen Russian assets is Fait Accompli
? This story doesn't ever started yet, you should be very short sighted to be thinking on this way. This is a years/decades long subject and far bigger than what it seems, and I'm quite sure Russia left the money to be taken on purpose. Including the exact amount that was frozen.
If that was never happened RUB would not be in the position it is now since there would have no real infliction point. Russia could not sell the world the USD/EUR are worthless, because their assets were never frozen/seized.
There would have no compelling reason to Russia demand the payment in RUB. The point of demanding RUB for payments is not really to punish the «unfriendly countries» but to make the RUB a worldwide first class currency - what would be hard to happen if the assets were not frozen in first place.
Now the next best thing
is this assets actually being seized. There are (apparently) 500 billion of west investment in Russia, some extreme profitable like Rosneft shares, a large part of Sakhalin project shares (which Russia doesn't have control since they don't have the majority of the shares). Russia is likely praying to have these assets seized.
India was a COLONY
, and under the International Law there were no theft since UK (in simple terms) owned it, or do you think India don't know International Law? In fact India has deep tradition on it, China doesn't and use foreign lawyers, btw.
You could have brought a more interesting example, Congo which was never a Belgium colony but personal property of the King... which completely changes the nature of the thing but yet there is nothing to pay anyway.
The fact my realm of specialization is Law and International Relations already indicate why I'm not in some battle at this moment, for the same reason you don't see a «military special operation» happening inside the UN/ICJ/ICC building - in fact this is not ever possible since the they could just be moved elsewhere in a second
The thing is, International Law is not made or designed for «people». People doesn't have international personality and so they have no business in this area, but are just subjects of it under the body
of their countries. It doesn't matter if the people of some country think this or that, the maximum they can accomplish is getting their country to work for the objective they want, which mostly means have the country pretending to be working on that objective since they (people) have absolutely no idea of how these things work and hardly can ever formulate a objective that make any sense at a given point.[EDIT]
Also, the main source of International Law is the VIOLATION
of it, and what is happening now is the definition of a few things that were in the gray zone, and now are being imposed as legal, but also new (or not so new) things like the assets being frozen.
For instance, USA/NATO invaded Iraq using a preemptive strike narrative. They didn't invented it, preemptive strike was present in the doctrine for ages. At that point it was deemed as illegal but the magic
thing is: nobody said anything (other than minor irrelevant protests). Then again in Afghanistan. Cutting it short, now Russia who is sitting at the other side of the spectrum (what is important) did the same, attacked Ukraine preemptively which change the situation, and preemptive strikes (or attacks) should now be seen as legal - we will probably see then more often from now and on.
The same principle is valid to the assets that were frozen. They have done it with Venezuela, Iran etc. with no actual reaction, what put this practice in the grey legal zone. They did with Russia, but different of the others Russia is reacting actively, and so (in the way International Law works) this is quite unlikely this practice will be deemed as legal. And I don't think the west will try to do it again, because now will be a clear (proven as) illegal act and they are likely to have their assets frozen everywhere.
 the discussion of the theory was about the legality, since this is similar to self-defence and state of necessity, in fact one step before state of necessity.