Italy and Hungary oppose warfare supply to Ukraine

[mikkel_the_dane]

The NATO already violates article 11, in fact I can openly insult the NATO...because they openly violate the article 11 of our Constitution.

Giving weapons to Mr. Zely who is attacking Russia is the cherry on the cake of this violation.

And by the way ...in Italy they are already fighting against this violation. Watch this. I guess you are smart enough to understand what "il decreto VIOLA LA COSTITUZIONE" means in English, right?

I really don't care about what you post as the author of what I quoted is also Italian. So you are just voicing your opinion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In your opinion, what does "Italy repudiates war as instrument meant to settle international disputes" mean?

Explain me. I want to be enlightened by your juridical wisdom.

I give you this as I have no opinion on it myself:

Article 11 of the Italian Constitution and the war in Ukraine: The constant dialogue between Constitutional and International Law - QIL QDI

Questions of International Law

www.qil-qdi.org

ZICCHITTU PAOLO

www.unimib.it

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Si, monsieur.
Article 11 of the Italian Constitution and article 26 of the German Constitution.

Article 26 (Ban on preparing a war of aggression)

Activities tending and undertaken with the intent to disturb peaceful relations between nations, especially to prepare for aggressive war, are unconstitutional. They shall be made a punishable offense.
Weapons designed for warfare may be manufactured, transported or marketed only with the permission of the Federal Government. Details will be regulated by a Federal Law.



In supporting Ukraine against a foreign aggressor who is actively invading and bombing Ukraine, there is no "peaceful relation" to disturb. Nor is there any preparation for "aggressive" war. Ukraine's struggle is a struggle of self-defense - not an act of aggression.

This article would be violated if Germany were to give weapons to Russia instead of Ukraine.​

 

[Estro Felino]

I give you this as I have no opinion on it myself:

Article 11 of the Italian Constitution and the war in Ukraine: The constant dialogue between Constitutional and International Law - QIL QDI

Questions of International Law

www.qil-qdi.org

ZICCHITTU PAOLO

www.unimib.it

I have read some passages here and there.
I prefer not to comment. Uncommentable.

You don't know a little detail: only the Constitutional Court can ascertain whether a law or a decree is anti-constitutional or not.

And he is not the Constitutional Court.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you could speak Italian, you would have read that that's exactly what the Italian article says.

Have you ever heard of "click bait", "propaganda" and "sensationalism"? You should inform yourself.

Why are there no records, none at all, from any official sources that state Italy is voting against military aid packages?

All you have is an opinion piece by a reporter, with no corroboration or additional evidence whatsoever.

Instead, all actual official sources state Italy is "all in" on its support for Ukraine (both humanitarian as well as militaristically) and that it is only against Ukraine using Italian weapons on Russian soil.

A true EU citizen should be able to understand articles written in English, French, German, Italian and Spanish.

A responsible citizens should factcheck its sources.

Because there is a huge difference between defense and offense (attack).

Yes. And the military aid is meant for defense. ie: trying to kick the russian invader out of the country.
Not for attack. ie: invading Russia and trying to defeat them there.

As said, many countries don't allow Ukraine to use the weapons they received on Russian land. Including the US and alike.
It's only rather recently that countries are starting to change stance on this.

It's not misinterpreted. It just that we are a US colony so we are not really free to express ourselves.

Sure, sure... bring out the conspiracy drivel again.
Meanwhile, not a single official source of Italy voting against military aid to Ukraine. Nothing.
All you have is an obscure Italian article with no corroboration at all.

Widen your horizons a bit by expanding your sources and vetting a bit.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What about PM Fico?

What about it?

Your OP was about Hungary and Italy.

Changing topics already?


BTW: I love how you start your "what-about-ism" deflections literally with "what about...." Makes them real easy to spot for readers.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If they provide weapons meant to attack the Russian territory, they are violating article 26.

No.
They are not providing weapons to the aggressor.

They are providing weapons to the victim of the aggressor.

And I can demonstrate it in any German courtroom.
And the Constitutional Court of Karlsruhe will agree.

You are such an internet warrior.

Go for it. Let's have a laugh.

 

[Estro Felino]

I really don't care about what you post as the author of what I quoted is also Italian. So you are just voicing your opinion.

With all due respect...
you believe that a war is an interpretable notion.

Actually the lounge-loving and carefree Left interprets war in a very laughable way, by saying that the wars waged by the USA (Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan) are holy and just, whereas the wars waged by Russia are wrong and unholy.
Why? Because USA IS GOD, while Russia is manure.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Maybe you don't understand.
If Mr. Zely uses those weapons (meant to be used as defense warfare) to attack Russia, Italy is violating article 11 of its Constitution.

You keep claiming this............
But so far, you haven't done anything beyond merely claiming this.

And all future supplies will have to be cancelled.

Yeah, like NATO's collapse is "imminent" I bet.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have read some passages here and there.
I prefer not to comment. Uncommentable.

You don't know a little detail: only the Constitutional Court can ascertain whether a law or a decree is anti-constitutional or not.

And he is not the Constitutional Court.

And neither are you. So unless there is an actual relevant verdict you can link to all other links and claims by you are irrelevant by the standard you gave.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is your opinion. Here is another one:
"...
Lastly, Article 11 includes a general directive to the Italian political and institutional bodies in their international relations, requiring them to actively pursue a pacifist policy and absolutely prohibiting any involvement in wars of an offensive nature or as means ‘for the settlement of international disputes’.[56] Yet, this does not exclude participation in wars waged to defend the homeland and the territory of another State. The Constitution does not explicitly clarify whether or not it is allowed to participate in wars to defend other States, thus opening up the space for the identification of an implicit authorization through international law.[57]
In the silence of the Constitution, the concept of ‘defensive warfare’ should be defined in light of the international rules governing the use of force and those provisions regulating the exercise of individual or collective self-defence. The ‘opening’ of the Constitution to international law allows for an integrative interpretation of its provisions, like the recognition of the ‘natural right’ to self-defence or defensive support in certain circumstance.[58] What is more, in the present geopolitical situation, defence of the Homeland under Article 52 of the Constitution as ‘a sacred duty for every citizen’, cannot but include defensive alliances between States, with all the related consequences in terms of mutual assistance in the event of an invasion by a third country.[59] ..."

Article 11 of the Italian Constitution and the war in Ukraine: The constant dialogue between Constitutional and International Law - QIL QDI

Questions of International Law

www.qil-qdi.org

Hey, no fair....

You are making far to much sense here, what with your use of reason and facts and evidence..........................
You are supposed to just make empty claims if you want to play by @Estro Felino 's rules.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

With all due respect...
you believe that a war is an interpretable notion.

Actually the lounge-loving and carefree Left interprets war in a very laughable way, by saying that the wars waged by the USA (Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan) are holy and just, whereas the wars waged by Russia are wrong and unholy.
Why? Because USA IS GOD, while Russia is manure.

Just give a link to the constitutional court. Otherwise my answer to all other claims by you in these threads regarding this, is the same:
Just give a link to the constitutional court.

 

[Estro Felino]

Just give a link to the constitutional court. Otherwise my answer to all other claims by you in these threads regarding this, is the same:
Just give a link to the constitutional court.

Answer this question, then:
were the wars waged by the NATO and the USA in Afghanistan, Iraq etc... justified or not?

Maybe you don't understand that Italy systematically violated article 11 every time she followed the NATO in those disgusting wars in the Middle East.

 

[Estro Felino]

Just give a link to the constitutional court. Otherwise my answer to all other claims by you in these threads regarding this, is the same:
Just give a link to the constitutional court.

There hasn't been a verdict so far.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Maybe you don't understand that Italy systematically violated article 11 every time she followed the NATO in those disgusting wars in the Middle East.

Just give a link to the constitutional court, since you are not the constitutional court. Follow your own rules!!!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because if you had, you would understand that the Italian Constitution cannot be interpreted, since it's Napoleonic legal system.

So that article is wrong.

That is so rich.

Did you note the author of that article?

He's an Italian associate professor of law, with specialization in the italian constitution, attached to the university of Milan.

Perhaps you should go to Milan to the university and explain to them how you know the constitution better then the university's professors who are actually experts in constitutional law LOL


What a (bad) joke....

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There hasn't been a verdict so far.

Then what you claim is irrelevant according to your own rules as per Article 11. Follow your own rules!!!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In your opinion, what does "Italy repudiates war as instrument meant to settle international disputes" mean?

It doesn't mean anything remotely close to what is happening in Ukraine.
That is not some international "dispute". That is all out war.

Dispute is what China has with Taiwan.
It's what Russia had with Ukraine, before it invaded the country.

Once they invaded, it ceased to be a "dispute" and it turned into a "conflict". A war.

Explain me. I want to be enlightened by your juridical wisdom.

See above. Somehow, I'm convinced it will be in one ear and out the other.
Or you'll have some silly what-about-ism comeback or you will just change the topic without actually addressing the point made.

 

[Estro Felino]

Just give a link to the constitutional court, since you are not the constitutional court. Follow your own rules!!!

You won't answer a simple question about the wars waged by the NATO and USA.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I really don't care about what you post as the author of what I quoted is also Italian. So you are just voicing your opinion.

He's not "just" some italian.

He's an associate professor of law at the university of Milan, with a specialization in constitutional law.