Submitted by Crimbobimbobippitybo t3_122so8k in worldnews
green_flash t1_jdsjvai wrote
Reply to comment by Neuroprancers in Banksy's migrant rescue ship seized by Italy's coast guard in Lampedusa by Crimbobimbobippitybo
That clashes with International Maritime Law though. There is a duty to rescue.
> There is a duty pursuant to international law for a ship to attempt the rescue of persons at danger at sea.
We'll see, I guess.
djq_ t1_jdthewt wrote
Actually, it clashes directly with EU law, as did the sea watch ruling. Italy will loose this one in EU court.
Hapster23 t1_jduk62q wrote
In the meantime people are dying in the mediterranean because their rescue ship is seized by italian authorities. Fucked situation
Yog_Sothtoth t1_jdur5pi wrote
It's their goal, to make people die (so less migrants), while at the same time denying it.
Hapster23 t1_jduujxn wrote
That's not really something one can prove (that they want them to die) so I would avoid that kind of rhetoric since it doesn't add much to the conversation, other than polarising the issue. In reality it is a complex issue, since these countries have to bear the burden of all north African migration attempts. Their solution was to reduce the number of rescues by making rescue boats return to port, this in theory would mean the passage is more dangerous and thus disicentivize illegal migration, and thus less of a burden on these countries. Obviously reality is different, these people are fleeing their country because they would rather risk dying in the Mediterranean then continue living as they are, so this "solution" just leads to more deaths. Truth is that EU needs to help share the burden of these countries (some form of migrant relocation system based on populations etc) so then they cannot justify shitty laws like the above.
Yog_Sothtoth t1_jduvhre wrote
While I agree with you I have to point out this is a well established strategy, they did the same with unemployment benefits, the goverment campaigned heavily for its removal only to find out a lot of their supporters benefit from it so what are we going to do? Easy, you cannot refuse ANY job offer, not just about the money, but also location. It's ingenious, you can be offered a job 500km from where you live with a paycheck of 500€ and if you refuse you lose unemployment. No matter if you actually could live on it or not.
[deleted] t1_jdxe4eh wrote
[removed]
GroundbreakingRice36 t1_je5w5h9 wrote
>Truth is that EU needs to help share the burden of these countries (some form of migrant relocation system based on populations etc) so then they cannot justify shitty laws like the above.
I agree, EU need to implemant a new relocation system based on population within africa first because africans migration into EU will be the biggest threat to European's politics in the future. If they act NOW, they can reduce that crisis....at least until they find a better plan.
Africa is big, plenty of land. All they need to do is building many large cities in safe countries like Gabon, Botwana, Angola, Namibia (like the way chinese do with their ghost cities). Then bring skilled workers from around the continent to manage it. And then bring the refugees/migrants there to work and live in safe and stable environnement.
It will be a huge investment but much more beneficial in short and long term.
I doubt Europe will survive another migration crisis. I've seen many population around EU already prostesting against putting refugees/migrants into Hotel. France is burning, inflation... Italy voted a right wing, Greece is already overwelmed.
It's time for EU to have a PLAN and anticipate the problem before it come to its shores.
GroundbreakingRice36 t1_je5zna3 wrote
EU have its own agenda. They only wanted the syrians refugees (and some libyan refugees) for their need of cheap labor not all refugees. EU even had Operation Sophia to rescue migrants for their aging population. Once they got what they needed, they stoppped the operation.
It was never about "good moral" nor "right thing to do". It's by interest.
So now, whoever try to get into the mediteranean sea, will have to face the consequences. Whatever they make it or not.
Neuroprancers t1_jdsml66 wrote
We make laws first and ask questions later ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Crimbobimbobippitybo OP t1_jdstac8 wrote
No we don't, that's what failed states, Russia and China do, we're better than that. Even ignoring the moral dimension, it's the rule of law that makes the EU and North America such destinations for tourism and investment.
Eptagon t1_jdsvxp9 wrote
> we're better than that.
Correction: we ought to be. In reality, we're not. At least not under the current government.
johndoe30x1 t1_jdsvm0g wrote
In the U.S. you can’t even ask the court if something is legal before the fact. You have to fuck around and find out. (Tax court is a notable exception to this)
snowtol t1_jduoooi wrote
To be fair, OP did state that this is how it works in failed states.
Crimbobimbobippitybo OP t1_jdsvt3d wrote
Laws are all matters of public record, what are you talking about?
johndoe30x1 t1_jdswjdl wrote
Well then I guess we better get rid of all the appellate courts and the Supreme Court if the law is the law and there is no interpretation of matters of law! Seriously though, advisory opinions, reference questions, etc. do exist in some jurisdictions and not in others. I wonder if Italy is one such jurisdiction
Crimbobimbobippitybo OP t1_jdswuqf wrote
In the US and EU at least all court proceedings are matters of public record, with rare exceptions such as rape shield laws and national security.
Noredditforwork t1_jdttrtb wrote
You are missing the distinction between codified civil law and common law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
Laws get written, then people try to find loopholes and beneficial interpretations, then judges decide if you get away with it.
Crimbobimbobippitybo OP t1_jdtvtxv wrote
Italy doesn't use common law, they use codified laws. 🙄
Noredditforwork t1_jdtvyjj wrote
You responded to a comment about US law which is derived from common law.
ETA: lol, blocked me because you can't read or accept a correction, what a twit.
Crimbobimbobippitybo OP t1_jdtw885 wrote
This is an article about Italy and Italian law, digressions by dafties aside.
Synkope1 t1_jdu7oz6 wrote
It's not a digression, YOU brought in North America to the discussion. And then when he started talking about US law, YOU engaged. Don't complain about digressions just because you lost an argument, it's embarrassing.
Neuroprancers t1_jdu4snx wrote
Many laws are passed that are later ruled unconstitutional and repealed, even in stronger democracies.
The particular type of legislation is a "Decreto legge", a fast-track with 1-year duration, which is quite abused by Italian governments. (EG the "milleproroghe", look it up for a failing state)
Also, Oxford comma.
S_A_N_D_ t1_jdt2rqn wrote
In general, local laws typically superseded maritime laws. Rarely however do local laws conflict in this regard, and usually it's local laws will be a more strict version of the maritime law (such as environmental restrictions). Where this might not hold up is if the vessel was in international waters (more than 12 NM from the Italian coast) then the Italian laws would and could not apply. Then it just becomes a question of access to Italian ports, which isn't guaranteed. I'm not sure how they could be fined however if they were not in Italian jurisdiction and didn't break any IMO law.
Neuroprancers t1_jdua4j4 wrote
The ship gets impounded as it docks in Italy.
Spain and France are too far, last time Italy forced a rescue ship to drop people in France, France threw a hissy fit and withdrew from some cooperation treaty, Malta refuses to do anything.
Everyday_Hero1 t1_jdtshqw wrote
Calling those 2 failed states is so stupid. Just because we dont like them, doesnt mean they are failed states.
Crimbobimbobippitybo OP t1_jdtvwf5 wrote
I didn't call them failed states, learn to read.
Everyday_Hero1 t1_jdtzhdz wrote
Oh so you are just putting them on the same level as failed states without ACTUALLY calling them failed states.
Makes much more sense........
Crimbobimbobippitybo OP t1_jdvku4c wrote
I didn't do that either, learn to read.
Heavyweighsthecrown t1_jdu8ari wrote
> we're better than that
XD XD XD XD XD XD XD
Crimbobimbobippitybo OP t1_jdvkqrv wrote
Ok, I'm better than that, you're not.
Is that what you prefer?
GroundbreakingRice36 t1_je60jni wrote
Wrong, EU and North America isn't a destination of tourism and investment because of rule of laws.
For tourism it would be non-industrial countries like Thailand, Phillipines, ..
EU is getting more tourism because of its OLD HISTORY and basically the origin of many invention, ideology, doctrine....NEVER BECAUSE OF THE RULE OF LAWS.
Investments? I would say asians countries is winning the investment category (from China to South East Asia).
Nobody care about EU's moral dimension other than those who want to benefit from it (migrants, workers and refugees) because they know the laws is weaker over there....and more welfare.
VeryQuokka t1_jdwem6f wrote
Italy's judicial system is that of a failed state. The country sent geologists to jail for failing to predict an earthquake, among other failures.
[deleted] t1_jdun21e wrote
[removed]
green_flash t1_jdv29gv wrote
Don't spread misinformation. It's the Italian SAR that is responsible for assigning them a port for disembarkation. It is by international maritime law decidedly not the responsibility of the rescuer to find a willing port. There is also nothing that says it has to be the closest port. Only that it has to be a safe port. The Italian SAR never assigns Tunisian ports. I don't know whether it is because of the hassle involved or because they don't consider them safe.
GroundbreakingRice36 t1_je5qvhx wrote
Tunisian ports are safe but it's harder to convince tunisian gouvernement to be a port of entry for rescued migrants stranded at sea unless it's from their own tunisian coast guards.
green_flash t1_jduo8uk wrote
Tunisia has been found to drive refugees into the Libyan desert and leave them to die there.
It's most certainly not a safe place for non-Tunisian refugees. Non-refoulement principle applies.
casus_bibi t1_jduwuh6 wrote
Irrelevant to rescues at sea laws, though, which are only to prevent people drowning.
green_flash t1_jdv1uvz wrote
Not irrelevant at all. As I said, the non-refoulement principle applies. Besides, it's the Italian SAR that is responsible for assigning them a port for disembarkation. It is by international maritime law decidedly not the responsibility of the rescuer to find a willing port.
GroundbreakingRice36 t1_je5s2zr wrote
No, it's the up to rescuer to find a willing port.
There was an asian boat (I don't remember the name or date but they were likely a South East Asians boat that rescued lots of migrants, they docked all of them to Libya (the nearest port and available to dock).
Lots of tunisians fishermen that found migrants, bring them backt to Tunisia.
NGOs can (if they wanted) work with Tunisia, Algeria, Morrocco, Libya) to stop migrants from taking the sea TO SAVE MORE LIVES (since the goal is to save them from drawning NOT TRAFFIC THEM INTO EUROPE illegally).
Then if they aren't drawning in the sea. Finding another solution to transfer them into safer african countries or safe neighboring countries. NOT SENDING ALL REFUGEES THEY CAN SEND INTO EU SHORES.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments