Seizing funds is completely different than arresting an official, but neither would be possible without the targeted state taking risks by investing them abroad and having those figures travel to ICC-compliant countries in the first place. Former Russian President and incumbent Deputy Chair of the Security Council Dmitry Medvedev
"Had Russia done the exact same thing as the West, then countries across the world could fear that Russia might one day seize their assets too in the event of a crisis..."
According to this, as of 2022 Russia already froze about $500B in western assets. Froze not stole, which is how the West describes their own actions, so quid pro quo.
I don't think a retaliatory measure casts doubt on the safety of assets belonging to nations that aren't provoking Russia, and I don't think they'd read it that way. These days your money's much safer in a Russian, Chinese or even Iranian bank than in any western bank I would argue.
To give you an idea of how banks operate in North America, back in 2000 I had trading accounts in the US because their commissions were cheaper and my trades were all on the US market. Well, the Canadian brokerages (all owned by the big banks) petitioned the Canadian regulators to lean on the US brokerages to chase us out. I moved my accounts twice to avoid this, but they eventually leaned on Finserv which clears most US trades, and that was the end of that. I can't open a brokerage account in the US now, even though there's clear language in both NAFTA and the GATT that says I can. Of course these days if you protest government overreach in Canada you'll have your bank account frozen, so you can't pay the rent or buy food.
From what I understand, it wasn't a tit-for-tat freeze, rather post-2022 legislation limited the amount of money that can be taken out of the country by foreign firms.
There are also restrictions on selling their businesses and so on and so forth.
So the way that I see it is that he's presenting these moves as reciprocal in spirit, perhaps for perception management purposes, but they aren't really so.
This is a good analysis and it makes sense. Law often does not make sense. Most international law practitioners have said at some point that "there's no such thing as international law." When the parties subject to a legal regime abuse it and apply increasingly tortured definitions and rulings to satisfy their political ambitions, it disintegrates to uselessness and the subjects of the nations that do this are thrust into lawlessness. We are witnessing that in the US on a grand scale. Casus belli is not covered in any treaties to the best of my very limited knowledge on this subject. In legal terms, it doesn't really exist. In practical terms, it is whatever the bully du jour on the international scheme says it is. Moses came down with a tablet and people have been disrespecting it since that day.
"Had Russia done the exact same thing as the West, then countries across the world could fear that Russia might one day seize their assets too in the event of a crisis..."
According to this, as of 2022 Russia already froze about $500B in western assets. Froze not stole, which is how the West describes their own actions, so quid pro quo.
https://dzen.ru/a/ZdytqOmznikvZEoy?ysclid=ly2qrkem7o356711262
I don't think a retaliatory measure casts doubt on the safety of assets belonging to nations that aren't provoking Russia, and I don't think they'd read it that way. These days your money's much safer in a Russian, Chinese or even Iranian bank than in any western bank I would argue.
To give you an idea of how banks operate in North America, back in 2000 I had trading accounts in the US because their commissions were cheaper and my trades were all on the US market. Well, the Canadian brokerages (all owned by the big banks) petitioned the Canadian regulators to lean on the US brokerages to chase us out. I moved my accounts twice to avoid this, but they eventually leaned on Finserv which clears most US trades, and that was the end of that. I can't open a brokerage account in the US now, even though there's clear language in both NAFTA and the GATT that says I can. Of course these days if you protest government overreach in Canada you'll have your bank account frozen, so you can't pay the rent or buy food.
From what I understand, it wasn't a tit-for-tat freeze, rather post-2022 legislation limited the amount of money that can be taken out of the country by foreign firms.
There are also restrictions on selling their businesses and so on and so forth.
So the way that I see it is that he's presenting these moves as reciprocal in spirit, perhaps for perception management purposes, but they aren't really so.
This is a good analysis and it makes sense. Law often does not make sense. Most international law practitioners have said at some point that "there's no such thing as international law." When the parties subject to a legal regime abuse it and apply increasingly tortured definitions and rulings to satisfy their political ambitions, it disintegrates to uselessness and the subjects of the nations that do this are thrust into lawlessness. We are witnessing that in the US on a grand scale. Casus belli is not covered in any treaties to the best of my very limited knowledge on this subject. In legal terms, it doesn't really exist. In practical terms, it is whatever the bully du jour on the international scheme says it is. Moses came down with a tablet and people have been disrespecting it since that day.
to take someone's money because you dislike the person is illegal