When is a war not illegal? In conjunction with the Russo-Ukranian War, many newspapers call the war an illegal war. I figured, any war would be illegal, since an attack on a sovereign nation seems to me the opposite of a legal action. Under what circumstances would a war be considered a &quot;legal&quot; war? As in a war, were neither side is doing anything illegal by waging the war.
Legality vs. illegality is determined by the specific jurisdiction. Almost every nation can legally declare war, except Japan due to Art 9 of the Japanese Constitution (there is a &quot;work-around&quot; which may or may not be legal, and only recently could defend itself). Thus the US can declare war under circumstances defined by certain aspects of US law, and engage in war-like activities under other legally-defined circumstances. Canada can as well, following Canadian law, similarly Norwegian law defines the ability of Norway to declare war. It is up to the individual nation to enforce such laws on themselves. In principle, an agreement i.e. a treaty could exist between certain nations that they will not engage in mutual war, in which case it might be illegal for A to declare war against B. This can give rise to a legal dispute, to be resolved in some trans-national court. The Hague Convention of 1904 attempted in Art III to require a &quot;reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war&quot;, but that requirement is de facto dead. The UN Charter Art 2 can be interpreted as saying that members legally cannot engage in war, which is the main legal basis for saying that the war in question is illegal. This Congressional research document summarizes the present issue. Under the UN Charter, war is allowed in self defense, or to maintain or restore international peace and security. Availing itself of that exception, Russia has served the UN with a list of grievances to justify the invasion: a generalized threat from NATO relating to Ukraine; in collective self-defense of certain areas of Ukraine (Luhansk, Donetsk); finally, &quot;genocide perpetrated by the Kiev regime&quot; against ethnic Russians. Apart from the legality or not of an attack on Ukraine, the conduct of the attack is also subject to legal scrutiny, for example limits on attacks against civilians, children, medical and religious personnel, aid workers. Theoretically, the UN could sanction / take action against Russia, but any binding action can be vetoed by Russia (as a permanent member of the Security Council).
There is nothing illegal with doing this (absent specific contractual terms or industry regulations to the contrary in particular cases, e.g. in the case of export controlled high technology products). This is called operating a wholesale business or operating as a broker. Lots of legitimate legal businesses have this business model.
As with all international law, it depends on &quot;who says so&quot;: I will draw on the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War as most relevant. Article 3 distinguishes combatants from non-combatants, saying that Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. They then specifically prohibit murder: Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture but this only applies to non-combatants. There simply is no prohibition against killing combatants (unsurprisingly). Liberia acceded to that treaty, so for instance if one of their soldiers murdered a non-combatant, in principle they should try that soldier for the crime of murder under Liberian law. If some random dude (not a soldier) murders anybody in Liberia, in principle they should try him for the crime. Soldier may kill enemy soldier, even when the killed soldier is sleeping and poses no immediate threat to the soldier who kills him. That's the nature of war. In the case of Massaquoi, he might have been prosecuted by Sierra Leone, but negotiated immunity in Sierra Leone in exchange for information on his RUF colleagues. There was no such tribunal or arrangement w.r.t. his involvement in Liberia, and Finland opted to conduct an extraterritorial trial based on war crimes (not the killing of combatants). His acquittal was based on the lack of evidence that it was him that did the reported deeds (I don't know if there is a publicly available judgment, but it is 850 pages and in Finnish, so toivotan onnea projektille.
Yes Providing the attack was otherwise made in accordance with the rules of war, enemy civilian leaders who are directly responsible for the prosecution of the conflict (so, the Minister of Defence, yes, the Minister of Housing, no) are combatants under International Humanitarian Law.
Can any one uses this law to sue US for killing people in Iraq for example? No. This proposed law is limited to suing people or organizations involved in supporting terrorism in the US. The problem with it is if it becomes law and is used, the precedent will be set to allow lawsuits against foreign actors for such decisions. So a middle eastern government, e.g. Iraq or Iran, could pass a law allowing lawsuits against those who could be in some way responsible for war crimes during the Iraq war. So someone could sue the individuals directly responsible, their commanders for not stopping them or preventing them, the organization to which the individuals belonged, the government of the individuals, the members of the coalition, and the United Nations. And this would be done in that country's courts, not international courts with some claim to impartiality. The proposed law is a bad idea, but quite popular. There were some low level members of the Saudi Arabian government who supported actions taken by the group involved in the 9/11 attacks. The families of the victims are understandably annoyed by this. And yes, they are actually seeking justice, just not in the best way. This wouldn't make a good basis for blackmail, as there is no way to stop it. Blackmail is based on offering two alternatives and allowing the victim to pick one. This wouldn't be controllable like that. Once launched, it would be difficult to pull back.
In a democratic country, they cannot be sued successfully. Freedom of speech is for the citizens, not the government. And it is a company doing the banning, not the government. So the situation is totally different in two significant ways. (That assumes laws not too different from the USA. Obviously a country might have laws that make it illegal for companies not to publish what a political party says).
"Does threatening to attack cultural heritage constitute conspiracy to commit a war crime..." Almost certainly not. It's a threat to commit a war crime, but is probably not illegal in and of itself. On the other hand, if the Commander In Chief were to ask his generals what would be involved in mounting a cruise missile attack on the Meidan Emam in Esfahan, that would be conspiracy to commit a war crime (as would supplying the requested information).
Some people seem to believe that just because something happens 'in the internet' it is somehow outside normal jurisdictions. Wrong. In may be harder to investigate and prosecute crimes in the internet, but the laws apply all the same. There are some problems when it is unclear 'where in the world' something did happen -- in the jurisdiction of the perpetrator, the victim, or the service provider? But problems of jurisdiction apply e.g. to international fraud cases in the non-web-world as well. In many jurisdictions, the informed and voluntary consent makes some things legal which would otherwise be illegal. For instance, if two boxers get into the ring, it is understood that each of them did consent to be hit by the other. But usually two fighters could not legally agree to a fight to the death, because even if there are laws on assisted suicide, they do not apply to a fight. Insults, libel, and slander are not on the same level as homicide. There are jurisdictions where they are not prosecuted without the request of the victim. But an insult might also violate other laws, e.g. disturbing the peace. So don't bet on such an app unless you know for sure which jurisdictions are involved.