Since antiquity, far-sighted thinkers have worked on developing rules of behavior among nations in connection with war, diplomacy, economic relations, human rights, international crime, global communications, and the environment. Defined as international law, this “law of nations” is based on treaties or, in some cases, international custom. Some of the best-known of these international legal norms are outlined in the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Geneva Conventions.
The UN Charter is particularly relevant to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Article 2, Section 4, perhaps the most important and widely-recognized item in the Charter, prohibits the “use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” In Article 51, the Charter declares that “nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations.”
Ukraine, of course, although partially or totally controlled by Russia or the Soviet Union during portions of its past, has been an independent, sovereign nation since 1991.
Continue reading @ Counterpunch.
International law unfortunately exists in name only. All laws need a police force in order such laws, rightly or wrongly, can be upheld. At one point the USSR and USA policed their respective spheres of influence but with the fall of the former, which the latter jumped for joy over, the USA are suppossedly the custodians, unofficially, of international law. However, the US are as guilty as anybody else for breaching said laws, for example the use of depleted uranium bombs in Iraq. That is just one of many breaches by the USA of international law, the British in the six counties could care fuck all for international law. I remember reading on the bog door of a well known West Belfast pub; "when the people who make the law, break the law, in the name of the law, then there is no law", an apt piece of graffiti I thought!!ReplyDelete
I think there is much in that. International law exists in more than name but as you point out its implementation is compromised on serious matters because it cannot be enforced. Two frequent violators of international law, the US and Israel refuses to recognise the authority of the International Criminal Court.Delete
I firmly believe in the concept of international law but it also needs an international government to implement it. I guess the more global humankind evolves as a society in time it will see a global government. Much as we evolved into nation states we will evolve out of them. I think Pepe Mujica has called this one right.
The problem with reference to Azov Caoimhin is that while they exist and are a serious concern, if denazifying Ukraine was a Kremlin objective, it would never have employed the Wagner Nazis to assist. Have you read Michael Colborne's book on Azov? I'm hoping to when I get time. I have it here.
So, after Russia invades a sovereign nation, levels cities, bombs power stations and commits mass murder in Bucha and Izyum, among others, all you can comment about is the Yanks and the Brits? Thanks for the constant reminders of how out of touch the modern left has become.
No, Peter, as usual you miss the point. Not once have I condoned Russian actions in Ukraine, though I note you have neither commented or condemed the Ukrainian use of overtly neo Nazi troops in her army. Azov are openly modeled on Das Reich, they boast of it.ReplyDelete
My point is the lack of international law, it is a myth as various actions including those of Russia, the US and your beloved Brits prove. International law is theoretical more than a practicality and that is my point. It is very difficult to implement, especially when vitually all powerful countries breach it.
The EU and its military wing NATO can huff and puff all they want..........Russia has pulled their pants down and exposed to the world that the West is no Linford Christie.....more like a Christine.ReplyDelete
Despite all the good Ukrainian news propaganda, albeit it's went quiet of late, Russia quietly continues to achieve its objective of protecting its people(hence the wailing for more weaponry from the coke head despite never explaining where is all the weaponry they already got is when they had Russia 'in retreat').
The bind that the 'war is peace' leaders of NATO are in is they know that if they dare to give the Nazis longer range artillery then it will only mean a bigger Russia as per their objective demilitarizing banderistas at her borders.
P.s I see Clifford Peebles has joined the Nazis in Ukraine......rumors of Putin seeking immediate dialogue havnt been confirmed as of yet! Btw, did mi6 assist Peebles in joining up with the Nazis like they do with all their assets there atm? Just wondering.
I must wind Clifford up about being on the right side for once!! If I had the courage and commitment I'd either go there or Palestine to assist against another well established gang of war criminals.Delete
Caoimhin. The Russian invasion of Ukraine last year following on from its annexation of Crimea and its takeover of the Donbass region in 2014 are as crystal clear violations of international law as one could hope for. Past behaviour of powers such as the UK and US do nothing to mitigate or relativise that reality or the justified response of the rest of the world to ensure Putin's defeat and Ukraine's defeat. The Azov Regiment excuse has become as hackneyed as the use that Francoists made of the role of Fifth Regiment in the Spanish Civil War and that of defenders of Assad made of jihadists in the Syrian conflict. All figleafs to justify the indefensible.ReplyDelete
factor in that much of the strident chorus backing Russia's supreme international crime, to quote Chomsky, comes from the far right in the West. Read some of the stuff around the Hate theology lobby in the US and its far right environs.Delete
I never suggested in the article, Anthony, that "denazificcation" was a "Kremlin objective" but if it was (as Putin earlier claimed but has gone quiet on the subject) then employing their own brand will not denazify the area but give two like minded organisations, Azov in Ukraine and the "Wagner Nazis" suppossedly on the Kremlins side is the way to Nazify the whole area, Ukraine and Russia. If I were Zelensky, and if I, as he claims to be, were of Jewish extraction my concerns would not only be for the Ukraine, but for Jewish people living in that country. That is, of course, if Zelensky is who he says he is! Jewish people in Russia should be similarly concerned as their so-called government employs equally anti-Semitic thugs in the "Wagner Nazis". This conflict as taken a potentially more sinister turn, much more sinister.ReplyDelete
wouldn't it be fine if each member of Azov were to kill a member of Wagner and be shot at dawn for it!!Delete
A perfect solution Anthony, go right through the entire heap. Coudn't have devised a better means to an end myself.ReplyDelete