There seemed to be an incestuous discourse and a warped legal principle propaganda being spread among SG ministers and this could be a dangerous political posturing ante by Singapore. Why? This is because SG doesn't have a solid justification under UNCLOS.
We've stated previously that SG was wrong to cite UNCLOS because UNCLOS was primary for peacetime and not wartime activities.
Let's use AI to explain this.
It is crystal clear that the wartime activities will supersede peacetime rules and regulations, and the peacetime laws will be subjected to different interpretations during a war. Hormuz is part of a war zone and Iran can cite the maritime blockage as part of self-defence during a war.
How long can SG insist on its warped legal principle when everyone is paying a Hormuz toll after the Iran war? This is a likely phenomenon or outcome because the US will allow Iran to collect a Hormuz toll for its own reparation since the US won't compensate Iran for the illegal US attack against Iran.
No comments:
Post a Comment