Recent comments in /f/worldnews

autotldr t1_jdt54pu wrote

Reply to Mega-strike in Germany begins at Munich Airport by Kimber80

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 75%. (I'm a bot)

> Munich airport was ghostly quiet on Sunday in a precursor to a nationwide strike that will bring much of Germany to a standstill on March 27.

> A top union boss in Germany justified the massive strike planned for Monday as a "Matter of survival" according to an interview published in the Bild am Sonntag newspaper.

> The strike, Germany's largest in decades, is expected to cause widespread disruption on railways and at airports in Europe's largest economy.

Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: airport^#1 strike^#2 Germany^#3 union^#4 month^#5

27

macross1984 t1_jdt4hla wrote

Reply to Mega-strike in Germany begins at Munich Airport by Kimber80

With greater percentages of profit going into shareholder and upper management, perhaps it is time for German companies to learn to spread its wealth littler wider at the expense of upper class who already have more than enough money to make ends meet.

The benefit here will be people will have more disposable income which in turn will stimulate economy.

105

likeupdogg t1_jdt3a1s wrote

Reply to comment by appsnaple in New Zealand tells China its concern on lethal aid to Russia by HRJafael

The first point is false, if millions were actually in concentration camps the evidence would make it obvious, there would be no controversy. There are also many other Muslims in China apart from the Uyghurs that enjoy freedom to worship. How much do you actually know about Xinjiang's history and it's relationship to Afghanistan/global terrorism? History and nuance are extremely important in these conversations and seem to be completely missed by the majority of westerners.

I'm not well researched on the South China Sea issue but they definitely do not claim the entire thing for themselves. The lines are indeed blurry regarding this area due to its history of colonialism and war. As far as I know it's perfectly legal to build islands if they want to, at least their military bases are defensive and close to their homeland unlike some countries.

The Taiwan issue is incredibly complex and historical but as far as I know the Chinese government pushes for peaceful reunification, not invasion. To the Chinese, Taiwan is a part of China and so are it's people, they are brethren, they do not want to kill and invade them.

I don't have an opinion on whether or not it's legal to execute criminals in China. I'll just say that many in the west support capital punishment and many other countries besides China continue to practice it today. It doesn't make them an evil regime.

As for the war, due to geography China is inextricably tied to Russia and hurting that relationship would hurt the Chinese citizens. I think the government is trying to approach the situation with caution and doing whatever works out best for their own economy without "taking sides". Ultimately it's not their war and they don't want anything to do with it, it's a net loss for them whether they support Ukraine (lose Russian economic activity), support Russia (get shut out by the west economically), or stay neutral (people like you see that as supporting Russia anyway)

1

Dazzling-Ad4701 t1_jdt3192 wrote

Reply to comment by autotldr in Russian diplomat Vasily Nebenzya insists Ukrainian children will be returned once it is safe to do so by green_flash

their 'lack of recognition' is another meaningless russian canard. from the ICC's own website:

>Jurisdiction

The Court may exercise jurisdiction in a situation where genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes were committed on or after 1 July 2002 and:

the crimes were committed by a State Party national, or in the territory of a State Party, or in a State that has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court; or

the crimes were referred to the ICC Prosecutor by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) pursuant to a resolution adopted under chapter VII of the UN charter.

As of 17 July 2018, a situation in which an act of aggression would appear to have occurred could be referred to the Court by the Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, irrespective as to whether it involves States Parties or non-States Parties.

In the absence of a UNSC referral of an act of aggression, the Prosecutor may initiate an investigation on her own initiative or upon request from a State Party. The Prosecutor shall first ascertain whether the Security Council has made a determination of an act of aggression committed by the State concerned. Where no such determination has been made within six months after the date of notification to the UNSC by the Prosecutor of the situation, the Prosecutor may nonetheless proceed with the investigation, provided that the Pre-Trial Division has authorized the commencement of the investigation.

that's three separate ways the investigation and therefore the warrant are completely legitimate:

  1. ukraine accepted jurisdiction in or soon after 2014.
  2. MULTIPLE other state parties have made requests for investigation. i'm talking more than three dozen.
  3. the prosecutor can just nike it anyway, if they see fit.
2

S_A_N_D_ t1_jdt2rqn wrote

Reply to comment by Crimbobimbobippitybo in Banksy's migrant rescue ship seized by Italy's coast guard in Lampedusa by Crimbobimbobippitybo

In general, local laws typically superseded maritime laws. Rarely however do local laws conflict in this regard, and usually it's local laws will be a more strict version of the maritime law (such as environmental restrictions). Where this might not hold up is if the vessel was in international waters (more than 12 NM from the Italian coast) then the Italian laws would and could not apply. Then it just becomes a question of access to Italian ports, which isn't guaranteed. I'm not sure how they could be fined however if they were not in Italian jurisdiction and didn't break any IMO law.

14