Legality is a concept defined by the governments doing the things. It's funny to see people react to something they perceive as immoral and just claim it's illegal.
I'm no legal expert but I'm reasonably confident one or both of Florida and the USA would find that to be an illegal transaction. Presumably Britain and Mauritius did not, at the time.
However the UN declared it a violation of international law in 1965 and the ICK has in recent years come to the same conclusion, so in this case there is actual evidence to support that it was illegal.
> However the UN declared it a violation of international law in 1965
The harsh reality is that it genuinely doesn't matter what the UN declares. General Assembly resolutions are non-binding and are almost universally ignored.
The UN also is not the ultimate authority on international law. The countries subscribing to said international law are.
The combination of the UN and the ICJ does however make it entirely reasonable to describe it as illegal, and that was the point I was addressing in response to a post implying people picked something they see as immoral and "just claim it's illegal".
In this case the claim of illegality is backed up by a court the UK was one of the original proponents of, that the UK has presided over, that the UK was the first state to submit a case to. As such, whether or not the decision is enforceable it's quite a bit more than "just claiming it's illegal".
I'm no legal expert but I'm reasonably confident one or both of Florida and the USA would find that to be an illegal transaction. Presumably Britain and Mauritius did not, at the time.