This article explains how because of Russia's actions in the Ukraine war their non-domestic assets have been frozen, but not seized. The article then goes on to explain that the US has no legal right to seize any of these assets, but they are currently trying to change this president. The main argument for changing this president is that Russia had no right to invade Ukraine, so they lost their right to sovereign immunity. I feel like this change could have unintended consequences and would be applied more frequently, causing more global conflict than already exists today.
https://www.aei.org/articles/wth-dont-just-freeze-seize-russias-money/
4 comments:
How might altering the legal right to seize non-domestic assets impact the balance of power and influence among nations, especially in cases where sovereign immunity has historically been upheld?
What potential unintended consequences do you foresee if the US changes its policy to seize Russia's non-domestic assets due to their actions in the Ukraine war?
I also do not like the possibility that a country's assets could be seized by another due to differences in opinion. While I do not agree at all with Russia, setting the precedent of allowing the greatest superpower to help itself to freeze assets sounds dangerous. Not only talking about harbored resentment between nations, but whos to say the US won't end up in the minority opinion at some point, we sure wouldn't want to see our assets drained.
As Dom mentioned, this is a deadly precedent. It is confusing how there is even a possibility for that to even happen. It makes sense if assets are frozen if they are being invested abroad, but this is crazy...
Post a Comment