Land seized during war Say one day Country A attacked Country B, and this began a full blown war between the two countries. During this war, Country B seized some of Country A's territory along their mutual border, and Country B ended up winning the war. Now that the war has ended, is Country B required by some international law or law of war to return the seized land to Country A? Does it matter that Country A started the war, not Country B?
Country A and country B must do whatever they agree in the settlement of the conflict between themselves - returning or ceding of territory being one of these. Or they can disagree about these laying the seeds for further conflict. The most recent example of this is Russia's seizure of the Crimea from Ukraine; which they legitimised by a plebiscite. AFAIK, Ukraine and the international community has not accepted this but neither are they doing anything about it - legally Crimea is still part of Ukraine, practically it is part of Russia.
We have made a complaint about this decision to the local administrative and highest courts of Finland. Both of these courts rejected our complaint (the highest court rejected our right to even file a complaint!) without even looking into the details of the matter at hand. Did you hire a lawyer? If the court rejected your complaint without even considering it, it may have been procedurally improper. Generally speaking, once your complaint is rejected by a court with proper jurisdiction, the matter is resolved and you lost. End of story, too bad. You have no recourse but to accept the action of the local government as lawful even though you believe that your case was wrongfully decided. In any case, I doubt that the local government's action in your context is illegal. This is an issue of "condemnation" and not zoning. Generally speaking, the government has a power of eminent domain to seize property for a public use so long as a process is in place for the owner to obtain compensation for the seizure. A government owned recreation center would generally be considered a public use. Certainly, nothing you have described would violate the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2010/C 83/02, Article 17. As you note: No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss. This is a case where the deprivation is in the public interest, in which the Finnish courts have decided that the conditions provided by law for doing so have been met, and in which you acknowledge that you have a right to compensation. Since it appears that the compensation has not yet been determined, it is premature to say that the compensation you receive will not be fair or paid in good time, and you need to participate actively and vigorously in the compensation process to make sure that you do make the best case you can for fair compensation. Also, as you note, this has happened many times in Finland. This strongly support the conclusion that this action is legal under Finnish law, even if you would prefer to interpret its laws in another manner. Of course the compulsory purchase will not be paid with a fair market price but with a much lower price, which is technically a legalized robbery as it has many times occurred in similar cases in Finland. My next step is to file a complaint to the European Union Fundamental Rights commission in hopes that they can help me. An appeal to the European Union sounds futile to me, as everything you have said suggests that your rights under the E.U. Charter have not been violated. Call it robbery if you will from a moral perspective, but as you note, it is legalized robbery in much the same way that taxes are "legalized theft." Your efforts would be better sent hiring a lawyer to help you negotiate with the local government over the price. If you make a strong evidentiary case that the land is worth more than you have been offered, you have a decent chance of getting more than you have been offered, even if it is less than what you believe it is worth. You also have a better case of winning on appeal on the issue of an unfair price in a second instance court in Finland, than you would on the issue of whether the condemnation was legal, on which the settled law in Finland and under international law is that it generally is legal in your circumstances.
Law, as such, is not a moral or a philosophical construct. It can be based on moral constructs and often it is. And, of course, the process of writing laws is often informed by philosophy. But law as such is neither one of those. Law is a set of behaviors which are known to be acceptable to the powers &quot;that be.&quot; This maybe an unsettling idea. But it is true nonetheless. The phrase that summarizes this is &quot;any law is only as good as its enforcement mechanism.&quot; What makes it seem untrue is that in the modern tradition laws are written down. And, when there is a need to resolve doubt as to whether something is illegal or not, they are carefully considered through a deductive process. Within countries, there is little question who &quot;the powers that be&quot; happen to be. But when it comes to laws governing actions between nations, it is more complicated. Yes, treaties make it clear, ahead of time, what types of expectations exist. Predictability (even in war) allows for long-term planning. And even laws of war are usually followed because wars are fought with the expectation that at some point they will end. And predictability allows to set end-goal conditions. Notably, entities which have no clear end-goals in sight are the ones least likely to follow any laws. The idea of any group of countries sitting in court of another group of countries is mostly a political theater. There is no possibility of predictable outcomes from entities which have not made commitments to those outcomes. So whether some countries have to follow &quot;laws&quot; set out for them by other countries (or non-government entities) is largely a result of those countries or entities being in positions of power to dictate their will. This is not the same as international laws being strictly de facto. Agreed-upon restrictions and restrictions which have been dictated from the top-down, by those with more power, are de jure because they create predictable boundaries on behavior. De facto restrictions are the ones which have come to be the case without any prior agreement or fiat.
The main treaty here is the Outer Space Treaty and its implementation in US law. For your purposes, the relevant sections of the treaty are Article II: Outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means. Article VI: States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities...The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty... and Article VIII: A State Party to the Treaty on whose registry an object launched into outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over such an object, and over any personnel thereof... Article II means that setting up your colony doesn't give you ownership over the land it sits on (and Article XII permits anyone to stop by for a visit at any time), but it doesn't outlaw setting up a permanent base. And I hope your "all the resources" includes a small army of lawyers. Between them, Article VI and Article VIII make the United States government responsible for anything you do in space, so there's a lot of paperwork involved in getting permission to do anything above the Karman line.
In most cases, the state boundary line controls. For example, Kentucky owns the Ohio River along its border with Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. In essence, the boundary between Kentucky and these three future states is the low point of the Ohio River's northernmost bank. This was established by a Congressionally passed law in 1792. The boundary is defined by federal statute on a case by case basis for each of the rivers that is a boundary between U.S. states. Most codifications of a state's statutory laws also restate the federal statute defining the state's boundary at the beginning before the actual portion setting forth state laws begins. In the case of the Rio Grande river, which is a boundary between the U.S. and Mexico, an international boundary treaty determines where the boundary between the U.S. and Mexico is for this purpose. International treaties similarly define all other international water boundaries of the United States. This isn't the end of the story, however, because many activities that take place in the &quot;navigable waters of the United States&quot; (which basically means with respect to rivers, rivers wide and deep enough to be used for commercial transportation, like the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers and the Colorado River) are governed by federal admiralty law, rather than by state law (even if both sides of the river are in the same state). For example, the employment law of ship crews operating on the navigable waters of the United States are governed by admiralty law, and so are most laws governing tort liability in collisions between boats/ships, and most laws governing salvage of boats/ships that have sunk. Some admiralty law cases must be litigated in the U.S. District Courts (i.e. in the federal court system's trial courts) which have exclusive jurisdiction over some admiralty law issues, while other admiralty law issues, while still governed by federal admiralty law, may be litigated in either state or federal courts which have concurrent jurisdiction over some admiralty law issues. Still, to the extent that admiralty law does not apply, the state law of the state in which that part of the river is located will govern. Fun fact: As a young lawyer I once was part of a group of lawyers litigating an admiralty law case arising out of an incident taking place on the Colorado River near Grand Junction, Colorado. Do I have any defense for breaking breaking state B's law if I assumed I was still in state A jurisdiction? No. You could argue at trial that you really were in state A jurisdiction. But if the finder of fact at trial determines that you were in state B, then state B law applies.
So generally, when a region of a nation tries to break away and form a new nation or join a nation, it's acceptance as a nation is generally based on the Diplomatic Recognition of other Nations. This can either be de facto or de jure, with the former acting in a manner of having some acknowledgement of a government of a territory, while a de jure recognition typically is stronger with embassies, consulates, and treaties between the two nations. For example, the United States has de jure recognition of France and vice versa, while they merely have de facto recognition with Iran (They recognize there is a government of the territorial area known as Iran, but they feel that the current government is illegitimate and refuse to engage with it in diplomatic relationships. Iran similarly knows there is a United States, but refuses to recognize it for political reasons as well.). When two nations do not have de jure recognition they will often appoint another nation &quot;Protecting Power&quot; who will act as a representative of the appointing nation in the nation they do not recognize. Currently, the Swiss Embassy in Iran has an office dedicated to U.S. affairs as it is the Protecting Power of the United States in Iran. Iran has asked Pakistan to have the same duties. And before you ask, yes, it is the geopolitical equivalent of two people in the same room not speaking to one another, but telling a third person to give the other person a message (U.S.: Switzerland tell Iran that they will give us back our citizens who are being held in their jail cells or we will drop bombs on them. Switzerland: rolls eyes Iran, the U.S. says they want their guys back or they will bomb you. Iran: Oh yeah? Tell U.S. 'Death to America!' Switzerland: eye roll They said... U.S.: Already routing the bombers!) If a region is claimed by more than one government, than it becomes disputed territory. Presently China has a lot of disputed territory with its neighbors and Maritime neighbors. Ongoing disputes include territories also claimed by India, Bhutan, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, and The Philippines. Interestingly, the dispute with Taiwan is over who is the real government of China... Taiwan claims much of the other disputed territory China does... plus some territories which China has resolved disputes over. The Russia-Ukraine situation will likely leave the territory in question (The Donbas and Crimea Regions) listed as disputed. Generally, disputed territory doesn't mean nations cannot be friendly, as the United States has a number of territorial disputes with Canada, despite being very strong diplomatic allies (with the single largest land boarder between two nations in the world, disputed territory was bound to happen). Perhaps the most interesting is the now resolved dispute of the San Juan Island in Washington State. Oversimplified History has a good video about it on his YouTube channel, specifically the &quot;Pig War&quot; confrontations and does a pretty good job of highlighting just how dramatic the change to the modern border would have been.
It is possible in principle, in the US, under the Bureau of Prison Treaty Transfer program, so that one could serve your time in Australia for example -- but not New Zealand, which isn't part of a bilateral or multilateral treaty with the US: here is the list. Canada and Australia are on the list via the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons. New Zealand is (by choice) not a participant.
This is true of the merchant ships of most countries. The collection of all merchant ships bearing a nation's flag are collectively its merchant fleet. Basically, this means that German flagged merchant ships are subject to German admiralty law when on the high seas, and that German merchant ships can be conscripted to aid a war effort on behalf of Germany in times of war. Stated another more direct way, this means that in exchange for the benefits of German sovereignty for a merchant ship owner, the merchant ship owner must sign up to be eligible to have his ship drafted into the German navy in times of war. A U.S. specific description of the "merchant marine" can be found here, but the general concept that: "The Merchant Marine is the fleet of ships which carries imports and exports during peacetime and becomes a naval auxiliary during wartime to deliver troops and war materiel.", is equally applicable to the German Basic Law as used in this case. A unitary merchant fleet is the naval equivalent of an "unorganized militia" or "selective service" made up of people eligible to be drafted, but who haven't actually be called up for military service.