Is a naval blockade considered a de jure, or a de facto declaration of war? Let's say that China, or any other country for that matter, is subjected to a naval blockade by the United States, and as a result, China declares war against the United States. Will the diplomatic community consider the U.S. as the aggressor or China as the aggressor, and is there any legal precedent for this?
7
-
4A perhaps different way to think about it is that the US did have a blockade going on Cuba in 1962. However, it did not results in shots being fired between the US and the USSR so, at the level at which it remained, it clearly fell short of a war in practice.– Italian Philosophers 4 MonicaCommented Jun 26, 2023 at 1:41
-
13@ItalianPhilosophers4Monica The US was careful not to call it a blockade because a blockade is an act of war. It’s like how Korea was a “police action” instead of a “war.”– cpastCommented Jun 26, 2023 at 3:00
-
14@cpast Russia still calls its invassion of Ukraine as a "special military operation". That doesn't make it any less a war. The blockade of 1962 was very close to end in a nuclear war.– RekesoftCommented Jun 26, 2023 at 7:04
-
2Whether the US is the aggressor in that hypothetical does not depend on whether the blockade is a de jure or de facto declaration of war; it could just be an act of war.– phoogCommented Jun 26, 2023 at 10:55
-
4Whom other countries consider to be the aggressor mostly depends on whose alliance and/or power sphere they want to belong to, and with whom they think they'll make the best deals.– vszCommented Jun 26, 2023 at 20:01
|
Show 2 more comments
2 Answers
blockade, an act of war whereby one party blocks entry to or departure from a defined part of an enemy’s territory ...
As for whether the "diplomacy community" will consider the US as the aggressor or China as the aggressor, don't worry about it, because international law is only "law" when it is beneficial to powerful countries. What will happen is the US will say China is the aggressor and China will say the US is the aggressor, and their respective allies will support them.
-
10"international law is only law when it is beneficial to powerful countries" - that's not completely true; it's also usually law when it's neither beneficial nor harmful to powerful countries Commented Jun 26, 2023 at 17:23
-
9@RyanJensen you could argue it is beneficial in that case though - since it makes it seem like those powerful countries also "follow the law".– AllureCommented Jun 27, 2023 at 0:44
-
That's true - though if you interpret it that way it can be said of ALL countries, not just powerful ones - the less powerful you are, the more relative benefit you get from a system where everyone follows (or pretends to follow) the rules; the more powerful you are, the more benefit you get from a system where the rules are 'flexible'. Commented Jun 27, 2023 at 16:06
-
If only there was a neutral arbiter to decide these questions. Something like the UN but with less baggage. Commented Jun 29, 2023 at 1:11
The binary model of being "at war" and being "at peace" is obsolete nowadays.
International conflicts of the 21st century follow a model of escalation and deescalation. Enacting a naval blockade would be an escalation by party 1 in a conflict that probably already went through several steps of escalation. Party 2 breaking the blockade through force would then be another escalation. Party 1 retaliating by attacking assets that are not involved in the blockade would escalate the conflict further.
The question of where tensions start to become a war is entirely subjective. And so will be the reaction of international organizations like the United Nations. Remember that there are still several nations in the UN who refused to denounce the Russian invasion of Ukraine as an act of war.
-
2"probably already went through several steps of escalation." This is the key. While leaders in the US and PRC might out of the blue say "we should blockade the enemy", it's not going to actually happen without some initial provocation.– RonJohnCommented Jun 26, 2023 at 16:51
-
3The only caveat is how much escalation would happen before the PRC blockaded Taiwan. Presumably we'd see their forces gathering beforehand, and them making declarations like "acquiesce, reunite with Mother, peacefully before we reunite by force."– RonJohnCommented Jun 26, 2023 at 16:54