PokeVideoPlayer v23.9-app.js-020924_
0143ab93_videojs8_1563605_YT_2d24ba15 licensed under gpl3-or-later
Views : 82,905
Genre: People & Blogs
License: Standard YouTube License
Uploaded At Sep 5, 2023 ^^
warning: returnyoutubedislikes may not be accurate, this is just an estiment ehe :3
Rating : 4.946 (79/5,723 LTDR)
98.64% of the users lieked the video!!
1.36% of the users dislieked the video!!
User score: 97.96- Overwhelmingly Positive
RYD date created : 2024-02-11T17:41:31.51499Z
See in json
Top Comments of this video!! :3
Seems like a sketchy case to me. As described, a business organization sought redress from the authorities. There are many reasons a government will use unnecessary force, so a quid pro quo with the defendants should be proved. International law also provides protection from.arbitrary prosecution by a foreign state; a reasonable nexus should be proved.
Oil companies are unpopular but necessary, executives are despicable (perhaps) but worthy of a fair trial.
6 |
This just treating them as violating sanctions that did not exist at the time. If a government thinks a regime is so evil then the government puts sanctions on them forbidding that nation's businesses from dealing with that country.
The oil executives absolutely did not create nor propagate this conflict that was overwhelmingly racist in motivations. The Sudanese government wanted that oilfield as they were the main beneficiaries of the wealth of that oil.
The legal and moral argument seems to be that the oil companies should have shown greater moral foresight than the democratically elected government of Sweden and unilaterally imposed sanctions on themselves. And to not do so was somehow a crime by several degrees of association.
This is de-facto retroactive sanctions.
1 |
@shaunbanner6774
1 year ago
Corrupt oil companies? Who'd have thought
809 |