I know it might be too late for you to catch this, but this caught my eye:

how does this affect Angel Flights?

I know that it's an amazing program with a great cause, but one would think that a government organization like the FAA would have rather strict guidelines, and be leery of exemptions (however noble the cause)

Fair enough.
You've raised some interesting points about British and International Law (both of which I know very little about).

I won't ask you to unmask yourself here by posting an identifying document like that, but the whole situation is fascinating. It's always interesting to watch what happens when the state's monopoly of violence intersects with the liberties of its citizens (particularly when the state purports a facade of democracy).

Thanks for the introduction to the case - I expect that a weekend of reading is in store. [though if you wish to spoil the ending, I'd love to get a personal perspective on how it turned out (if it has, in fact, been processed yet)]

perhaps a simple matter of semantics, but does one necessarily follow the other?
That is to say (and, please forgive my ignorance on the matter), I assume that non-British citizens can petition the court and do have some standing to sue (just as non-citizens can be sued by the British court) to redress some wrong.

If that is the case, does asking the British courts to issue an injunction against the British Navy necessitate a recognition of sovereignty?

and if such a request of the court does imply such a recognition, where is the line drawn? Can the United States, or Mexico, or China ask the British government to refrain from blowing up their stuff without such a recognition?

and to where would the recognition apply? Do we acknowledge that the British possess total sovereignty (of all it surveys), or simply sovereignty over its own Navy, or would it be sovereignty over the requesting nation?

Not so. The State is quite capable of convicting you of perjury if you make the mistake of truthfully answering a question asked, instead of truthfully answering the question that they meant to ask https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Bronston_v._United_States#United_States_v._DeZarn

This. We have so many Macros and scripts in VBA (especially in Excel), that it's more cost effective to upgrade to a new version of Office every 3-5 years than it would ever be to port everything over to Open/LibreOffice. Open up VBA and the Excel folks will be happy to switch - they are the ones watching the money and licenses. Everyone else just uses Word to make passive-aggressive notes for the lunchroom.

I used to think so, too. Turns out, you can turn on sloppy focus in Windows (haven't confirmed in 7, yet).

Of course not, you're expected to pay for that level of depravity