Technology2 mins ago
Hypothetical Question
If we were to go to war with a or a number of countries that had siginifcant investmlent in our industries - lets take our utilities as an example although there are countless other examples (Water / Power). What would happen to them. Would they be nationalised without compensation (as they are owned by an enemy nation) or another alternative.
A strange question i know and an unthinkable one i suppose (as who wants to contemplate another war) but something i was pondering about . Any ideas as to what the legal/ political thinking is on this.
A strange question i know and an unthinkable one i suppose (as who wants to contemplate another war) but something i was pondering about . Any ideas as to what the legal/ political thinking is on this.
Answers
1 to 4 of 4
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by barney15c. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
In some cases, e.g Nazi Germany or wartime Britain, 'enemy' investors were paid off in compensation and forced to withdraw. Communist regimes (e.g. Soviet Russia) nationalised industry without compensation. But there have been cases in history where a state has continued to allow the 'enemy' to invest in its industry, e.g. in the US Civil War and in World War 1 arms companies sold to both sides, and during the Falklands War, Argentine/British investments were left alone. So it's all down to whoever controls the national political economy and what their policies are.
I have only today read this post, so hence my late answer:
In 1956 The United Kingdom and France conspired together with Israel which "agreement" required the Israelis to attack Egypt and to take the Suez Canal which had been nationalised by Col. Nasser (the then Egyptian President). The "idea" for this assault was that Great Britain and France would intervene as potential "peacemakers" and thus prevent the Israelis from escalating a war. The plan failed badly. The United Kingdom and France were severely censored at the UN, based on a strongly worded proposition from the United States of America and Russia, and the legality of Britain's involvement was thus tested to the limit. The debacle led to the downfall of Anthony Eden - a sick man - and the United Kingdom and France, together with Israel were obliged to make substantial compensation to Egypt under International Law.
In 1956 The United Kingdom and France conspired together with Israel which "agreement" required the Israelis to attack Egypt and to take the Suez Canal which had been nationalised by Col. Nasser (the then Egyptian President). The "idea" for this assault was that Great Britain and France would intervene as potential "peacemakers" and thus prevent the Israelis from escalating a war. The plan failed badly. The United Kingdom and France were severely censored at the UN, based on a strongly worded proposition from the United States of America and Russia, and the legality of Britain's involvement was thus tested to the limit. The debacle led to the downfall of Anthony Eden - a sick man - and the United Kingdom and France, together with Israel were obliged to make substantial compensation to Egypt under International Law.
1 to 4 of 4
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|