Russia, at large, circumvents our sanctioning measures by employing various evasive strategies
** outrageous, unfiltered insights, loaded with drama**
Just when you thought the world was getting a little less dangerous, BAM!* Out comes thecharges that vigilante hackers and shady merchant vessels have got Britain's back against the wall, while our rivals are waltzing around our current sanctions list. Don't believe the fancy government talk in the recently released Strategic Defence Review - the world is only getting riskier! *
The friendly Yankees are turning out to be more of a pain in the neck than a friend these days, and Russia and Iran are cooking up new ways to shove a knife in our backs. The law needs to catch up to this, man. We need fresh legal weapons, not just new combat gear!
Conflict ain't all about guns and bombs anymore. The Islamist Revolutionary Guard Corps, part of the dirty Iranian army, are cyber-attacking British folk left and right. Russia is using a massive, malign online network to spread false news and undermine our support for Ukraine in their crusade to keep Putin's power grabs in check. And Chinese spies have been found lurking around our corridors of power! These ain't full-on wars, but they're still threats to Britain that deserve some serious responses.
Crafty conflict has been a problem since time immemorial. Sun Tzu was on about spies in 400 BC, fer crying out loud! And sanctions, the way nations respond when they get threatened, ain't any younger. They come in all shapes and sizes, but are usually economic - stopping trade with actors to get them to back off. The ancient Athenians even banned traders from sketchy-ass Megara way back in 432 BC, for example!
Britain's the inventor of the boycott
Britain has loads of experience with sanctions, you know. The word 'boycott' even comes from a Brit! It was first used in 1879 when the tenants of Lord Erne's estates refused to work with Colonel B. Boycott due to his greedy-ass rent hikes. These days, we force companies acting as fronts for Iran's government to fund terrorism to sit this one out. We've slapped the Russians with over a hundred sanctions for their invasion of Ukraine!
Sanctions have evolved over time, from trade boycotts to price caps, diplomatic expulsions, and complex supply chain interruptions. But just like sanctions, our adversaries are always adapting. Russia is getting around our sanctions with a huge fleet of shady cargo ships. These vessels use shifty practices to sneak around our trade embargoes and oil price caps. Meanwhile, Iranian organizations are using undercover banking networks to funnel British finance to fund terrorist groups.
The Government is right to crack down on Russia's tactics to dodge our sanctions. But without the correct legal tools, we're always one move behind. updating the legal definition of 'conflict' would be a good start to getting Britain ready for the 21st century.
Modern threats don't just walk on two legs anymore. They're dispersed, hidden, and increasingly digital.
Our current legal definition of conflict is a relic from 1949's Geneva Convention, stuck in the past. Modern threats are dispersed, hidden, and increasingly digital. They're autonomous ships, sailling under flags of convenience to trade for our enemies. Expanding the legal definition of conflict to include third-party sanction evasion and digital subversion would give the state the power to freeze assets and embargo actors linked to hostile countries.
But as we get tougher, we can't forget the rule of law. It's not enough for those proven innocent and removed from our sanctions lists to only get their frozen assets back on a random basis. We need credible 'off-ramp' mechanisms, not just to protect the property rights of citizens but also to encourage good behavior. If our sanctions punish the innocent too harshly, we can't expect them to have much of a deterrent effect. The law needs to keep up with the times to keep us safe, but we can't lose our rule of law in the process.
Vigilante hackers and shady merchant vessels are putting Britain on the defensive, while our counterparts breeze through our sanctions list. A broader legal definition of conflict would give Britain the flexibility to catch these sneaky actors and keep Britain safe in the 21st-century battlefield of digital conflict. Our opponents are going digital - so too must we!
Robert Buckland, former lord chancellor and justice secretary
- In the realm of cybersecurity, Russian actors are using a massive, malign online network to spread false news and undermine Britain's support, creating a digital threat that requires a broader legal definition of conflict to combat.
- Britain's adversaries are employing unconventional tactics, such as Iranian organizations using undercover banking networks to fund terrorism, which necessitates updating the legal definition of 'conflict' to include third-party sanction evasion and digital subversion.
- China's spies pose a threat by lurking around Britain's corridors of power, demonstrating the need for a more comprehensive legal definition of conflict that addresses modern, dispersed, and digital threats to national security.
