Statements that Canada ia at war?

[Privateer]

Sorry if this has been covered before, but a search on the term "war" produces an unwieldy number of results, as you might expect.

Can anyone point me to statements by members of government, government officials or senior military personnel to the effect that Canada is currently at war (as opposed to involved in a conflict or some other such phrase)?  I am currently researching law relating to prize (under the Canada Prize Act) and the matter of whether or not a country is actually at war arises.  Thank you for your help.

 

[ModlrMike]

That's not an easy question to answer. In short, a country doesn't need to declare war to be at war. Think of Belgium in WW1, Holland, Finland, Belgium (again) in WW2. These countries were clearly at war, but never declared war on Germany. I'm not sure that you will find many statements from government "declaring" that we are at war. What is evident however, is that regardless of whether we declared war on the Taliban/AQ or not, they certainly declared war on us.

 

[Privateer]

ModlrMike, I don't doubt what you say.  However, if someone is going to make the submission that the current conflicts in which Canada is involved are war or sufficiently akin to war such that the law of prize may be applied, then statements to the effect that Canada is at war could be used to support the submission.  That is why I'm asking if anyone can point me to any such statements.  Thanks!

 

[Pikache]

NATO Article 5. Mutual self defence.

UN resolutions mandating use of force to enforce UN mandate.

You won't find the word 'war' in there probably, but this is about the legal documents that allows use of force within international law I'd guess.

 

[1feral1]

Firstly Privateer, welcome to army.ca.

Our countries might not be at 'war' as defined by our piss weak politicians, but our Regiments truly are. Thats is a fact.

When our Defence Forces are fighting and dying, and killing the enemy thats war in my definition anyways.

The Australian government calls it 'warlike' service, and thats their official posture they are using.


Regards,

Wes

 

[ModlrMike]

Wes, I couldn't agree more. If I implied otherwise, I apologize.

I think that Privateer's attempt to link the current situation to the Prize law is a bad premise. We're not at war with a defined nation per se, but rather the Taliban/AQ organizations. As such, they don't really have assets that could be considered "prizes" and disposed of under the prize law. I would recommend that one read the entire Hornblower series to get an understanding of the roots of prize taking and disposal.

Section 5(1) of the Act would seem to rely on the concept of belligerence between established nations. Such is not the case today. While the current edition of the Act dates from 1970, the original Act was proclaimed in 1952, well before we had to worry about such things as terrorist organizations.

 

[1feral1]

We even got 'war service' leave for our 207 days of hell.

So war service leave in warlike conditions. Yes, we had been deliberatly attacked, and gave it back to them much harder. He at times used mortars and Ole Lady Katyusha came knocking at the door too. Not including the EID family of terror, and the EFP treats too.

Ha, as far as I am concerned, that is war, as it sure aint training 

Cheers,

Wes

 

[the 48th regulator]

Sniff sniff,

I smell something fishy here, Privateer are you a Silverbach owned ship?  Or do your alliances fall within a photofile domain?

Har, shiver me timbers.

dileas

tess

 

[1feral1]

Hey Tess, have we been duped??? or should I say 'I'?? Ha!


Wes

 

[Privateer]

Section 5(1) of the Act would seem to rely on the concept of belligerence between established nations. Such is not the case today. While the current edition of the Act dates from 1970, the original Act was proclaimed in 1952, well before we had to worry about such things as terrorist organizations.

Actually, the Act was originally passed in 1945, to replace the system established by Order in Council at the start of WWII.  In any event, the point of a paper I am thinking about writing would be the applicability (or not) of prize law to current circumstances, so the point you raise would have to be addressed.  Also, prize law addresses more than just adjudicating situations where civilian ships are taken in prize.  There is also, for example, prize salvage, which addresses situations where friendly ships are taken by the enemy and then retaken by your forces.  One can imagine a scenario only slightly different than the recent situation involving the captured Royal Navy pers which might involve retaking captured vessels.

Anyways, if anyone can point me to the statements I asked about, it would help provide some context for the paper.  Thanks.