|
|
|
|
|
by jampekka
917 days ago
|
|
There will be areas which are under the rule of US military and can house weapons and troops at their will. What more would be needed for those to be characterized as bases? Also a foreign country positioning weapon stockpiles is a bit questionable for sovereignty in itself, and I find it quite wild to use that as a rationale for giving up the country's rule of law in the areas. You think USA would be happy to have Finnish military areas within their borders because there happens to be Finnish weapons there? |
|
And defense agreements that establish exceptions from local laws are nothing out of ordinary either. For example, the agreement between Finland and Sweden stipulates that visiting forces are excluded from customs procedures related to weapons, explosives and other dangerous goods.
The Finnish-American one is much more detailed and goes into weeds like excluding vehicles transported by the US into Finland from car tax and VAT. :) It's common sense, but countries that are ruled by law must have these things written down.