- Joined
- Apr 18, 2013
- Messages
- 94,341
- Reaction score
- 82,722
- Location
- Barsoom
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The Long Legal Path to Bringing Russia to Justice Over MH17
Russia has used its veto power at the UN to scuttle a proposed United Nations MH-17 Tribunal, and has indicated it will not cooperate in this matter with the Netherlands, Australia, or the International Criminal Court. Nor will Russia agree to extradite any of the named MH-17 shoot-down Russian military officers/soldiers.
5/31/18
On 25 May, 1993, the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed a resolution establishing the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which later became known as the Hague Tribunal. While presiding over that Security Council session, Russian diplomat Yuly Vorontsov said his country backed the tribunal "since we see it not as a court of law, not as a place to settle scores or take revenge, but as an instrument of justice meant to restore international legality, to restore the world community’s faith in the triumph of truth and reason.” Exactly 25 years later, the Netherlands and Australia, whose citizens made up a majority of those killed when a Malaysian Airlines Boeing was shot down in July 2014 over eastern Ukraine, officially announced that they consider Russia responsible for this tragedy. The question of Russia’s responsibility for the MH17 downing has already been raised in an international court, during a Ukrainian-Russian dispute in the limited context of the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism. n international law the international accountability of a state violator is almost a voluntary matter. In the modern world, unfortunately, there is no court to consider international disputes with a jurisdiction binding for all states: A condition of judicial consideration is always the agreement of those states involved. Therefore, in their desire to hold Russia to international account, the Netherlands and Australia's best hope is a “frank admission” by Russia, as well as on those mechanisms to which Russia has agreed, such as the possibility of appealing to the United Nations’ International Court of Justice (ICJ) in accordance with the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (which Ukraine used).
The Netherlands and Australia’s official statement will not in itself lead to any significant legal results. In essence, it amounts to a declaration by states involved in the MH17 case of their position and an invitation to Russia to enter into a dialogue, to acknowledge its responsibility or its willingness to resolve this dispute in an international court. However, statements by Russian officials suggest that there will be no dialogue. It is inconceivable that the Russian authorities would suddenly change their version of events and admit to the participation of Russian Armed Forces in the MH17 incident. Domestically, Russia's well-oiled propaganda machine will likely further discredit the international investigation and the Dutch justice system. Nevertheless, the justice machine, both national and international, has started up, even if its speed has so far failed to impress. In the near term, the only alternative to a long-drawn-out information war may be a hearing in an independent international court. International law is not ideal, of course, it does not work miracles, but it offers possibilities which, alas, not everyone uses.
Russia has used its veto power at the UN to scuttle a proposed United Nations MH-17 Tribunal, and has indicated it will not cooperate in this matter with the Netherlands, Australia, or the International Criminal Court. Nor will Russia agree to extradite any of the named MH-17 shoot-down Russian military officers/soldiers.