The EU on Friday announced it was transferring about $1.6 billion in frozen Russian Central Bank assets to Ukraine for the purchase of weapons.
The step is the first time the EU has dipped into the frozen Russian assets to fund the proxy war and marks a significant escalation of the Western economic campaign against Moscow.
The transfer came after the EU agreed to provide Ukraine with about $3.2 billion per year using the profits made by the Russian assets. The EU has also agreed to a US-proposed plan to loan $50 billion to Ukraine and pay it back using frozen Russian funds, but it’s unclear when that will go through.
According to Euro News, 90% of the $1.6 billion will go toward weapons, and 10% will be spent on humanitarian aid. But the money is being wired directly into the Ukrainian government’s budget, and it’s unclear if there’s any real oversight.
Russia has vowed that it will respond to the EU or any Western country stealing its Central Bank assets. Western banks have warned against the plan to send Russian assets to Ukraine as they fear it will open them up to legal action if they’re involved in any of the transfers.
Ukrainian Justice Minister Denys Maliuska previously called the EU’s plan to provide the $3.2 billion each year “almost nothing” and demanded that Kyiv receive the approximately $300 billion in Russian Central Bank assets that are held by Western countries.
Yet more idiotic and illegal behaviour by western leaders. They never consider the consequences of their actions. Total morons
I agree, but calling them "Total morons" is an insult to "Total morons." "Total morons" can be peaceful and nice like me.
This also involves an act of war, doesn't it? Please compare Rule 50. – (bottom-up). "This is a long-standing rule of customary international law …"
Conclusion: The 3rd World War is already raging!
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/legal-remedies-war-damages-asset-seizure-and-international-arbitration
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/case-for-seizing-russian-assets-reserves-for-ukraine-by-timothy-ash-2024-06
https://ti-ukraine.org/en/research/confiscation-of-russian-assets-legal-human-rights-and-political-limitations/
https://www.lto.de/recht/hintergruende/h/confiscation-freezing-russian-assets-rebuilding-ukraine-war-russia
https://geopolitique.eu/en/articles/sanctions-confiscation-and-the-rule-of-law/
https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/de/should-third-states-follow-ukraines-lead-and-confiscate-russian-state-assets/
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/frozen-russian-assets-to-finance-ukraine-collateralization-instead-of-confiscation
https://www.chathamhouse.org/2024/05/confiscating-sanctioned-russian-state-assets-should-be-last-resort
https://commission.europa.eu/law/cross-border-cases/judicial-cooperation/types-judicial-cooperation/confiscation-and-freezing-assets_en
https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/internal-security/organised-crime-and-human-trafficking/confiscation-and-asset-recovery_en
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2024/759602/EPRS_STU(2024)759602_EN.pdf Legal options for confiscation of Russian state assets to support the reconstruction of Ukraine
https://www.jurist.org/news/2024/05/russia-signs-decree-allowing-seizure-of-us-assets-in-russia/
https://fokum-jams.org/index.php/jams/article/view/125/223 Seizures and Liquidation Sales in the United States during World War II
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26266156 Property Rights in Time of War – First World War
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C11-4/ALDE_00013590/
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/allies-begin-the-reckless-seizure-of-russian-assets/
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule50 Rule 50. Destruction and Seizure of Property of an Adversary
Interesting suggestion, as far as I can see this applies to the acts of warring parties i.e. what is done in an armed conflict
So when the Israelis take Palestinian lands or destroy their properties for no military gain they are committing a war crime.
It is interesting in that the west has indeed directly seized property in the shape of yachts of many Russians so if this law applies we should already have seen court cases based on the dubious legality of these seizures – have we?
As an additional point, as far as I have seen the western powers have so far avoided actually confiscating the Russian funds outright, strongly suggesting that they are aware of the legal (and economic) issues doing so.
What they are doing is confiscating the interests that the frozen funds would earn if they had not been frozen – my guess is that this is the loophole they will use – not sure if it'll work though.
Good morning Michael. You effort an interesting point here but… It still comes down to one very basic fact:
Man’s inhumanity towards man (or perhaps better said: humankind).
Not sure I get your point – seen in this context i.e. the Russian invasion of an independent and UN recognized country are you arguing against or for or against trying to force them to abide by international laws even if doing so, means violating other international laws?
The U.S. doing this is in violation of the 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution.
Now I'm not a lawyer but as far as I know the 4'th amendment applies exclusively to US citizens (perhaps also to people on official as in legal visit to the US)'
Am I wrong?
I.e. this does nothing for me as a Dane if the US wants to confiscate whatever money I have in the US while living in Denmark.
As I understand the constitution the same applies to the 5'th amendment i.e. it applies to US citizens and does not confer the same rights upon foreigners not living in the US.
I'd be happy if I'm wrong but I kind of doubt that this is the case – otherwise why have no one raised the much worse case of the US constitutional violations of the rights of the detainees in Guantanamo?
“Am I wrong?”
Yes. See Rehnquist’s opinion in US v. Verdugo-Urquidez.
First of all thanks for the reply – we live to learn.
But as far as I can read there are limits see the end with bold:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/494/259/
As I read it this is where the rights for non citizens and nonresident aliens is withheld – do you disagree?
It’s not about whether I agree or disagree. It’s about what the opinion (not just the syllabus) says:
—–
The Fourth Amendment phrase “the people” seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution, and contrasts with the words “person” and “accused” used in Articles of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating criminal procedures. This suggests that “the people” refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.
—–
If the respondent in the case had been a long-term alien resident of the US so as to have “developed sufficient connection with this country,” he’d have enjoyed 4th Amendment protections. His claim was rejected because he’d only been in the US for four days, not because he wasn’t a citizen.
Is that not restating what I was referencing i.e.:
Whereas you put the same (as I see it) this way:
I.e. I specifically suggested that this protection was likely not extended to citizens of Russia with no residence in the US – which is what this whole debate is about.
To be clear, the 4th Amendment confers no rights on anyone whatsoever.
It simply requires the government to respect the rights of some people — but not, as you point out, others.
And even where the Constitution does supposedly require rights to be respected, the regime generally ignores that requirement if it’s at all inconvenient.
https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/cjistp/cjistp.html
United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property
https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/should-third-states-follow-ukraines-lead-and-confiscate-russian-state-assets/
https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/Rome-Statute-eng.pdf Article 8, 2 b, xiii
What does adversary mean?
Warrior declarations are rare these days. Selected actions also determine aggression in public international law and the law of war.
So I interpret the confiscation of foreign state funds from the EU in this conflict 'Russia versus Ukraine' as an act of war, an entry into war on the part of Ukraine from a broader perspective and not, as you do, from a narrow construction.
https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/cjistp/cjistp.html
United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property
https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/should-third-states-follow-ukraines-lead-and-confiscate-russian-state-assets/
https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/Rome-Statute-eng.pdf Article 8, 2 b, xiii
I think that EU and the US basically agrees with that position, which is why they have avoided confiscating Russian state funds.
Which you might have seen from the part of my comment where I wrote:
So you are arguing against a position that I did not take.
Hi Bernard:
Thank you for your effort here. That is a nice bit of effort. I will begin going through this now, with a cup of hot coffee and get back to you later….
To me, it started in 2014.
A number of countries including Saudi Arabia stated they would take action against the EU if they did this. Now we will see how much it is going to hurt..
SA is probably just huffing and puffing.
Unwinding a few hundred billion in investments takes time
Insane Mafia megalomaniac types are really ruling Western democracies.
The EU idiots think the interest on the principal doesn't belong to Russia…!
Theft on a massive scale.
Correction: US Puppet transfers $1.6 billion on orders from the Earth's only true master race.
Details matter!
We should be watching history documentaries on how Europe stumbled and bumbled its way into World War I 110 years ago.
July 28, 1914 – November 11, 1918