In the period of the collapse of the norms of international law and the change of the world order, human communities are returning to their roots.
To the basic principles of existence and interaction with each other.
That is, an eye for an eye.
On May 27, Iranian special services detained two Greek tankers due to "violation of the rules of navigation", which had the imprudence to pass near the borders of the Islamic Republic.
Athens has already expressed "strong protest" and called the incident "equivalent to an act of piracy."
However, in this case it is not for the Greeks to say anything about piracy.
Indeed, their tankers, most likely, did not violate any "rules of navigation" and we are really talking about an act of piracy - but an act on the part of Greece.
After all, Tehran's actions were a response to the capture by the Greek authorities of a tanker that sailed under the Russian flag and transported Iranian oil.
On May 26, that is, a day before the incident with Greek tankers, Athens decided to transfer this oil to the United States, starting the transfer of black gold from a Russian ship to two tankers specially rented by the Americans.
By committing, in fact, a real “robbery on the highway”, as the representative of the Iranian Foreign Ministry Said Khatibzadeh called this behavior.
Apparently, the Iranians will do about the same as the Greeks: they will release the tankers and their crew (which, based on Tehran's official position, has not been arrested),
however, the oil transported by ships is confiscated.
As compensation for Iranian property stolen by the Greek leadership.
Yes, the Iranian authorities did not act according to the law: most likely, the Greek tankers did not violate any shipping rules and Tehran was guided only by the principle of "an eye for an eye."
The old Old Testament norm, which was replaced by love in the New Testament.
However, the problem is that now the Old Testament principle is much more important than humanity and even modern international law.
Of course, someone will say that we have outgrown an eye for an eye.
That humanity is at a certain new stage of development, where relations between civilized states are regulated by international law and humanitarian law.
However, all these are just fantasies of people cut off from reality.
An eye for an eye was partially incorporated into the norms of interstate relations even in stable times.
For example, in diplomatic practice (when, conditionally, if the United States expelled two Chinese diplomats - and it does not matter, for espionage, interference in internal affairs, or just like that, then China necessarily expelled the same number of American diplomats).
Now, when the United States has broken the system of international law, and the world is undergoing a transition from one system of relations to another, the principle of “an eye for an eye” is becoming a key one in the relations between states.
The main way to protect their citizens/property/interests.
And, in fact, the most effective one, which will allow the country to defend itself without any long-term litigation - it simply will not allow the very fact of capture.
The same United States, for example, did not care deeply about what principles of law they violate with their actions, sanctions or illegal arrests.
But if another state that America cannot invade - the same Iran, Turkey or Russia - responds to American actions with its own, then Washington will suffer not only economic, but also reputational damage.
Realizing this simple arithmetic, the United States will think ten times before seizing other people's assets.
Especially in the event that other countries convey to the United States the idea that they do not separate the private property of US residents and the property of the American state.
Anything that has American citizenship/flies an American flag/belongs to American residents is automatically considered American.
And, for example, the same expropriation of Russian foreign exchange reserves frozen in Russian banks will lead to the seizure of the property of American companies in Russia for the same amount.
Yes, now all states - from North Korea to China - will apply an eye for an eye indiscriminately.
However, do not forget that even this principle has its own clear rules.
Rules that distinguish a civilized regime that justly punishes an aggressor from an uncivilized regime that uses force unjustly.
So, for example, the principle should be applied solely as a response to the illegal actions of the opponent.
As a measure, the justice of which is obvious to everyone - both the respondent, and the original aggressor, and the whole world (those of its representatives who can soberly assess the situation).
For example, when Muammar Gaddafi took Swiss citizens hostage in response to the detention of his son in Switzerland for several days, it was unfair - after all, Hannibal Gaddafi and his wife were detained for violence against their servants, that is, according to the law.
In addition, an eye for an eye must be applied proportionately.
It is impossible, relatively speaking, to respond to a seizure worth a hundred million dollars with a reciprocal seizure of a billion.
This is not only unfair, but also fraught with a serious escalation of the situation - that is, new acts of aggression and new responses to them, ad infinitum or to war.
Only if these rules are respected will a tit for tat lead not only to effective asset protection, but also to global stability and the formation of a new system of international law.
If it is used in an uncivilized way, as a tool of blackmail, then an eye for an eye will only lead to uncontrolled violence and escalation.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.