Dr. HANS BLIX: GEORGIA AND INTERNATIONAL LAW: 15/09/2008 (MaximsNewsNetwork) 

UNITED NATIONS - / MaximsNewsNetwork / 06 September 2008 --  President Theodore Roosevelt is said to have summoned the Solicitor-General of the United States and asked his opinion about the plan to help rip off a large piece of territory from Colombia and recognize it as the state of Panama . The learned lawyer is reported to have responded with a question:

"Why let such a grand plan be marred by any petty legal considerations?"

This was in 1903. Through the adoption of innumerable conventions and agreements during the last hundred years international law has become stronger and come to cover most subjects – from trade and double taxation to conduct in outer space.  

Despite – or perhaps because of the experience of – two world wars states agreed to rules in the Charter of the United Nations under which they assumed the obligation not to use armed force against the ‘territorial integrity and political independence’ of other states. Exceptions were made only for self-defense against an armed attack and for armed action authorized by the Security Council of the United Nations.  

While governments mostly declare that they accept these rules, they sometimes have different views as to what use of armed force is and is not allowed under the rules. Examples abound and no court is automatically available to judge in these differences.  

The Bush administration asserted that the armed attack on Iraq in 2003 without any authorization by the Security Council was legally justified as a way of enforcing earlier resolutions of the Council. Few independent international lawyers in the world support that argument. President Medvedev has declared that respect for international law is one of Russia ’s guiding principles, while many governments have condemned the intervention in South Ossetia as a breach of international law and politicians have warned about a new aggressive Russia that must be carefully watched.  

In defense of its intervention Russia has said inter alia that the action was necessary to protect Russian citizens and the civilian population of South Ossetia . This line of argument is understandable and common – but insufficient – to justify armed interventions. There was no armed attack on Russia . Given that Georgia was using artillery against people (in South Ossetia) whom they assert are their own citizens it was not surprising that the Russians referred to the new doctrine that allows action against a state that can not or will not protect its own citizens. However, the license to act  is given to the United Nations – not individual states.  

A better legal argument would be to note that ever since Georgia seceded from the Soviet Union South Ossetia and Abkhazia have used all means at their disposal – including armed force – to resist being incorporated in the new state of Georgia . To be sure many declarations referring the ‘territorial integrity’ of Georgia must be taken to mean that in law – de jure – South Ossetia was seen as part of Georgia . However, in practice – de facto – the country has been independent of Georgia and this status has been protected and confirmed through agreements requiring cease fire, non-use of force and the stationing of Russian, Georgian and other observers. Russia has been a guarantor of this order. It was violated by Georgia using armed force – artillery, missiles and tanks – to bring about the incorporation of South Ossetia in the country with which the Ossetian population had refused to merge since 1991.  

Would respect for the UN Charter have required of Russia do no more than trying to persuade the Security Council to order Georgia withdraw its military forces from South Ossetia ? This can be argued. In all likelihood such effort would have been hindered or hopelessly delayed by the US and others in the Council. In the eyes of the world and Russian public opinion Russia would have been seen as pushed aside by Georgia and the US .  

Thanks in large measure to moderate voices within the European Union all parties in the Georgian affair now appear to move to a phase of reduced belligerency. An optimistic note would be that a factor of increasing importance in the world community, namely the increased interdependence of states, was a main reason for this development. In is not unreasonable to hope that this factor may prove to have a moderating influence also in other arenas where the interests of states collide.      

     HansBlix@MaximsNews.com

Labels: United Nations, U.N., Hans Blix, Russia, Georgia, International Law, UN Charter, South Ossetia, European Union, Security Council, Abkhazia, President Medvedev, Bush Administration, MaximsNewsNetwork,

 

Advertisement

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MaximsNewsNetwork   NEWS NETWORK FOR THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY

MaximsNewsNetwork is a Global News Network that is read worldwide, in 201 countries and territories. MaximsNewsNetwork is associated with MediaChannel.org and Globalvision News Network, global news and media information services with more than 350 news affiliates in 135 countries. 

Established in 1999, MaximsNewsNetwork now publishes in the six UN working languages: English, French, Arabic, Chinese, Russian and Spanish.  

SEE:  About MaximsNewsNetwork

The views expressed are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of MaximsNewsNetwork.

REACH THE WORLD'S MOST INFLUENTIAL PEOPLE  

SEE: Advertise with MaximsNewsNetwork | MaximsNews MEDIA PARTNERSHIPS with MaximsNewsNetwork      

MaximsNewsNetwork | CONTACT MaximsNewsNetwork  | Please contact us about Republishing: ©Copyrights 1999 - 2008, MaximsNewsNetwork. All rights reserved.