Re: Seems reasonable and fair
Theoretically, the legal bar is quite high for dual use. Article 53 of the 4th Geneva Convention says that destruction "is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations."
Not "desirable", not "necessary", but "absolutely necessary". However, the Russian targeting of Ukrainian civilian heating and electricity generation infrastructure is already a more clear-cut example of a breach than Starlink would be.
In the case of deportation, Article 49 is pretty clear... forced deportation is not allowed. Evacuation is allowed (but not forced) with a right of return. Of course Russia tries to get the UN to tie itself in legal knots because they have annexed the territory, so according to them it is no longer "occupied", it is Russia. But that would never really get far in an international court.
It's all academic really... Russia has a massive catalogue of war crimes documented already, many truly egregious, committed by all levels of the Russian state. But with its permanent UNSC seat, and the inability to physically access the perpetrators, they can continue to commit war crimes at will. If Russia attacked a non-military satellite, from a legal POV very little would change, unfortunately. Probably the only thing stopping them is the contamination of LEO, and the 2021 anti sat test is a bit of a clue how much they care about that.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
