Over yonder. I get that Greenpeace had to use whatever arguments were likely to be successful in court, but this is not a good look for it. It has publicly argued on exactly the basis that Malik describes and is now stuck with that as its position.
This is all a bit obscure, I suppose, but if you're not up with the detail of what is being talked about in his post, go here. The post I just linked to, my first one at Talking Philosophy, copped some criticism for getting too deep into the legal technicalities, but this stuff is important, and it's important to try to get it right.