23.12.2021, 15:50
Die offizielle Position der finnischen Regierung war übrigens schon 2016, dass es sich um ein militärisches gegenseitiges Beistands-Bündnis handelt:
https://brill.com/view/journals/nord/90/...27_127.xml
https://brill.com/view/journals/nord/90/...27_127.xml
Zitat:According to this author, for all practical purposes, the formulation of the first paragraph of Article 42(7) looks like a conventional collective defence undertaking.1 Further, according to this author, the reference to different states’ different security and defence policies does not alter this impression nor does it detract from the legal force of the clause.2 This view corresponds to the Finnish view put forward in the Finnish government bill to Parliament of 2016 containing a proposed Act on the Provision and Reception of International Assistance:3
" "The mutual defence clause is equally binding on all member states. It addresses all member states in the same way. The references to the special position of certain member states or to commitments made within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization which have been attached to the mutual defence clause do not exempt the member states in question from participating in the implementation of the clause. The references to the particular position of certain member states or to the role of nato do not deprive any of the member states of the right to assistance according to the provision.4"