2022: Is Ukraine at war with Russia? What exactly needs to happen in order for these two countries to be at war? Is it enough that one of the two sides make a declaration of war?
Actual hostilities suffice to conclude that there is a war. Per Art. 2 of the Geneva Convention 1949, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Technically you could stake such a claim in accordance with general principles of public international law, but every country has discretion about whether to recognize you as a sovereign state. Established states would likely have no interest in dealing with you until you have a certain amount of influence and resources. You might have to defend your claimed land and property by force at times from pirates, imperialists, states claiming authority by international agreement, etc. There are a number of microstates and micronations with varying degrees of recognition.
International Humanitarian Law applies to all armed conflicts The Geneva Conventions are a part of the overarching body of this law. It applies to all armed conflicts, not just declared wars. An armed invasion by R of U is a conflict to which IHL applies irrespective of if it is a declared war or not. BTW, declared wars outside Africa and South America are virtually unknown since WWII
england-and-wales Alice's defence will be that she had an honest belief, given the circumstances, that force was necessary and the force she used was reasonable in defence of John (and possibly Alice). John's consent is irrelevant unless it had some bearing on that. Why did John oppose the use of force? Did John tell Alice not to shoot because he would rather die than cause a death? Irrelevant. Did John tell Alice not to shoot because he believed Bob was not a real threat due to circumstances X, Y and/or Z that he wanted Alice to heed? Relevant.
Just wondering, in the plight of some recent news coming from Canada, and the Emergencies Act being evoked (protesters; thier right to protest in a certain area were vanquished and they were arrested); is there any justification for the current government to do so? There is legal justification for the current government to do so. As explained in the link above: In the weekend before the invocation of the Emergencies Act, Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland, who also serves as the finance minister, met with the CEOs of the largest Canadian banks to discuss how they could help resolve the situation. On February 14, 2022, during the Canada convoy protest, the Emergencies Act was invoked for the first time in Canadian history by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government, declaring a public order emergency. Under the Emergency Measures Regulations enacted after the declaration of emergency, participation in public assemblies that could result in a breach of peace by disrupting the movements of goods and people, interfering with the operation of critical infrastructure, or by supporting violence, was prohibited. Travel to and within places where these rallies were occurring was restricted, and foreign nationals were barred from coming to Canada to attend them. The regulations also specifically outlawed the bringing of children under the age of 18 to these assembles. Additionally the use, provision, collection, and solicitation of property and funds to support the prohibited assemblies or the people participating in them was banned. The regulations further empowered the federal government to protect critical infrastructure, Parliament Hill and the parliamentary precinct, official government residences and buildings, war monuments, and any other places that may be designated by the minister of public safety. The federal government was also given the authority to compel the towing and removal of vehicles, structures, and other objects used in blockades. Violations of the regulations is punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment and/or a fine up to $5000. Under the Emergency Economic Measures Order, also enacted pursuant to the declaration of emergency, crowdfunding platforms and their payment processors were required to register with the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC), and report large and suspicious transactions. Cryptocurrencies are also included in the expanded financial regulations. Banks were ordered to freeze personal and corporate bank accounts suspected of being used by people violating the regulations, and are protected from civil liability in enforcing the order. Insurance coverage for trucks being used in blockades will be suspended. Furthermore financial institutions had to determine on a continuing basis whether any persons violating the regulations were using their services and were required to promptly report findings to the RCMP or CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Service). Background and links to other stories with background can be found in a recent article at the Washington Post which notes that: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Wednesday revoked the use of emergency powers that he invoked to quell weeks-long blockades in the Canadian capital that spread to several U.S.-Canada border crossings and inspired copycats abroad. “Today, after careful consideration, we’re ready to confirm that the situation is no longer an emergency,” he said at a news conference in Ottawa. “Therefore, the federal government will be ending the use of the Emergencies Act. We are confident that existing laws and bylaws are now sufficient to keep people safe.” The move was a shift for Trudeau, who on Monday said his government still needed the sweeping powers even after the blockades protesting public health restrictions and his government were cleared over the weekend because it had “real concerns” that new blockades could pop up and that protesters might be regrouping at satellite hubs outside Ottawa. Trudeau last week became the first leader to invoke the 1988 Emergencies Act, and the House of Commons voted Monday to endorse the use of the law. But its unprecedented use also drew criticism from civil liberties groups, some opposition lawmakers and several provincial premiers, who cast it as government overreach. The act was written to be a last resort, to use when there were no other laws on the books that might end an emergency. Several legal analysts said that it wasn’t clear that the blockades met the threshold or that authorities had exhausted existing tools. Alberta Premier Jason Kenney is challenging it in court. The Emergencies Act allowed police to designate no-go zones where people participating in prohibited public assemblies or bringing minors to them could face arrest. One such area was Parliament Hill in Ottawa and the surrounding precinct. The fact that the House of Commons approved the use is pretty much the end of the line since the parliament in Canada has the authority of suspend individual rights in most cases under the Canadian constitution. And also to note, a State in the USA is trying to pass a bill for these oppressed Canadians to give them temporary asylum. This is clumsy and naked political posturing. States have no say in immigration matters including asylum and the people trying to pass that bill know perfectly well that such a bill is meaningless even if passed. Should Canadians be fleeing their country in light of what has happened in the past few days? No. I believe the CCLA stated, &quot;Let's be clear: There is no legal justification for using the Emergencies Act.&quot; The CCLA's statement greatly overstates the situation. If there is no legal justification, could Canadians seek asylum in other countries on the evoking of the emergencies act and would other countries take in Canadians seeking asylum from this current situation? No. Asylum requires an individualized threat of persecution which the vast majority of Canadians who didn't participate don't face. Moreover, they would have to show that it violated their human rights without lawful justification which they would be unable to do, and it has to be so severe that it puts your life and ability to live in the long run in your country in danger. Not being permitted to fully protest at a particular place for a week and having your bank accounts frozen for allegedly engaging in illegal activities doesn't meet that threshold.
Napoleon was never a prisoner of war, since he surrendered, as you say, after the conclusion of hostilities. If a label is necessary, he was probably a prisoner of State; but the important point was that in Rochefort he surrendered not, as in 1814, to the Allied Powers but to the British Government specifically: he dictated a letter on 13 July 1815 to George III including the lines "I come, like Themistocles, to throw myself on the hospitality of the British people. I put myself under the protection of their laws". (Since the French government had declared several of Napoleon's followers traitors and written to one of his staff "The interests of the State and the safety of his person make it absolutely necessary [for Napoleon to leave France as soon as possible]" and the Prussian and Russian governments would cheerfully have hanged him [no citation, but the behaviour of the occupying armies leaves little doubt], it is probable that this was less a grand gesture and more a necessity.) It is clear from his correspondence that Napoleon was envisaging some sort of genteel retirement like that of his brother Lucien, who was living in a country house under the supervision of a single police inspector; but this was never realistic, and the captain of the Bellerophon wrote specifically "I have no authority to agree to any such arrangement...I cannot enter into any promise as to the reception he may meet with" [from the British Government]; Napoleon decided to surrender nevertheless. It is interesting that Lord Liverpool (the Prime Minister) decided not merely not to imprison Bonaparte in the Tower as the newspapers were suggesting, but not to allow him to set foot in England: whether this was to avoid legal complications or to prevent a possible rescue attempt will never be known. But is is clear that after 15 July 1815 Napoleon had placed himself entirely in the power of the British Government, to be imprisoned or dealt with as they pleased. [Quotations as in Cordingly's Billy Ruffian, since it is to hand; but the best treatment of those days is Gilbert Martineau's Napoleon Surrenders.]
This is an important question that affects consumer advocacy, blog-based-journalism, political speech and spending, and probably other things. People disagree about what the answer is. This podcast episode features both sides of the argument. Professor Volokh holds the view that the freedom of the press is "freedom to print", "freedom to use the printing press". Freedom of the press is the freedom of everybody to use the printing press. Assessing the grammar of the clause, he argues that this points in the same direction. The text says "freedom of speech or of the press". He points out that speech is not a group of people. It would be odd to treat "speech" as an activity, but to treat "press" as a group of people given the parallel construction. This side of the argument is described more in this article by Prof. Volokh. Professor West argues that there is a defined group of people called "the press" that deserves protection under this clause. This article explains Prof. West's position in detail. The main point is that "An expansive definition of the press means virtually complete overlap between press and speech and thus no meaningful way to interpret the Press Clause." If "press" means simply the right to publish speech, then it becomes redundant because courts have held the right to publish speech is given under that "speech" portion of the clause. Justice Stevens's concurrence in Citizens United also argued for "some kinds of identity-based distinctions" regarding whether a person is a member of the press. Each side can give examples of the term "the press" being used at the time of the First Amendment that is consistent with their favored interpretation. I think to get the best idea of the two sides to this question, you should read Citizens United (including all dissents and concurrences), read the two articles linked above, and listen to the podcast episode.
The general rule is that the ability to have a valid divorce has nothing to do with where the marriage was entered into, or the citizenship of the parties. Usually, any jurisdiction with sufficient contacts with either member of the couple has jurisdiction to enter a divorce. Hence, generally, people get divorced in the place that they live. The problem in this scenario is step 5. I think that it is highly likely that the U.S. Embassy is simply wrong, unless there is some serious irregularity in step 4. An annulment after four years of marriage, as opposed to a divorce, is highly irregular and would not be allowed in the vast majority of jurisdictions. But, maybe there are facts and circumstances that make it otherwise. This fact pattern, while it on one hand sounds like a "for a friend" question based on real facts, also sounds like some important details that may be outcome determinative have been omitted.