СУЧАСНА СИСТЕМА МІЖНАРОДНОГО ПРАВА - PDF

Description
Актуальні проблеми міжнародних відносин. Випуск СУЧАСНА СИСТЕМА МІЖНАРОДНОГО ПРАВА УДК (477.75):327.5(470) МН17 TRAGEDY: RUSSIA IS NOT INVOLVED, REALLY? КАТАСТРОФА РЕЙСУ МН17: ЧИ

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 13
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Information
Category:

Fan Fiction

Publish on:

Views: 18 | Pages: 13

Extension: PDF | Download: 0

Share
Transcript
Актуальні проблеми міжнародних відносин. Випуск СУЧАСНА СИСТЕМА МІЖНАРОДНОГО ПРАВА УДК (477.75):327.5(470) МН17 TRAGEDY: RUSSIA IS NOT INVOLVED, REALLY? КАТАСТРОФА РЕЙСУ МН17: ЧИ СПРАВДІ РФ НЕ МАЄ ДО НЕЇ ВІДНОШЕННЯ? КАТАСТРОФА РЕЙСА МН17: ДЕЙСТВИТЕЛЬНО ЛИ РФ К НЕЙ НЕ ПРИЧАСТНА? Zadorozhnii O. V. Doctor of Juridical Science, Professor, Head of the Department of International Law of the Institute of International Relations of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. Задорожній О. В. Доктор юридичних наук, професор, завідувач кафедри міжнародного права Інституту міжнародних відносин Київського національного університету імені Тараса Шевченка. Задорожний A. В. Доктор юридических наук, профессор, заведующий кафедрой международного права Института международных отношений Киевского национального университета имени Тараса Шевченко. Abstract. Examines the arguments used by Russia to accuse Ukraine in disaster of Malaysian Boeing 777 that occurred on July 17, In particular, the article analyzes the following lines of arguments developed by the representatives of the Russian government and doctrine: responsibility of the state in whose territory the crime has been committed; the campaign to discredit the investigation into the incident aimed at whitewashing Russia and at deflecting suspicion and accusations from Russia; criticism of the ideas and procedures for the establishment of an international tribunal to investigate crimes associated with the downing of MH17. The author points to the absurdity, contradictions of the positions of the Russian authorities and the doctrine of international law in terms of international law, and in terms of the facts. In his turn, the author qualifies accident in terms of international law against the general context of the war of aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine. The author also argues in favor of a qualified international investigation into the accident and the creation of an international tribunal to prosecute the perpetrators of the tragedy. Key words: MH-17, Ukraine, Russia, responsibility, ICAO, international tribunal. Анотація. Розглядаються аргументи, які використовує Росія для обвинувачення України у катастрофи малайзійського Boeing 777, яка сталась 17 липня 2014 р. Зокрема, в статті аналізуються наступні лінії аргументів представників російської влади та доктрини: ствердження, що держава, на території якої було вчинено злочин несе відповідальність; дискредитація розслідування інциденту, спрямованого на знаття підозри та Задорожній О. В. 2016 48 Actual problems of international relations. Release обвинувачень Росії; критика ідеї і процедури створення міжнародного трибуналу з розслідування злочинів, пов'язаних із збиттям МH-17. Автор вказує на абсурдність, протиріччя, а також на необґрунтованість позицій російської влади та доктрини міжнародного права як з точки зору міжнародного права, так і з точки зору фактів. У свою чергу, автор кваліфікує трагедію з точки зору міжнародного права на тлі загального контексту агресивної війни Російської Федерації проти України. Автор також наводить аргументи на користь міжнародного кваліфікованого розслідування аварії та створення міжнародного трибуналу для притягнення винуватців трагедії до відповідальності. Ключові слова: MH-17, Україна, Росія, відповідальність, ІКАО, міжнародний трибунал. Аннотация. Рассматриваются аргументы, которые использует Россия для обвинения Украины в катастрофе малазийского Boeing 777, которая случилась 17 июля 2014 г. В частности, в статье анализируются следующие линии аргументов представителей российской власти и доктрины: утверждение, что государство, на территории которого было совершено преступление несет ответственность; дискредитация расследование инцидента, направленного на снятие подозрения и обвинения в адрес России; критика идеи и процедуры создания международного трибунала по расследованию преступлений, связанных с катастрофой МH17. Автор указывает на абсурдность, противоречие, а также на их необоснованность позиций российской власти и доктрины международного права, как с точки зрения международного права, так и с точки зрения фактов. В свою очередь, автор приводит квалификацию аварии с точки зрения международного права на фоне общего контекста агрессивной войны Российской Федерации против Украины. Автор также приводит аргументы в пользу международного квалифицированного расследования аварии и создание международного трибунала для привлечения виноватых в трагедии к ответственности. Ключевые слова: MH17, Украина, Россия, ответственность, ИКАО, международный трибунал. Current problems. One of the most tragic events of the armed conflict in the Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts of Ukraine was the downing of a scheduled international passenger flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur on 17 July 2014 [Borger, 2014]. All 298 persons on the board were killed [Walker, 2014], among them there were 44 citizens of Malaysia, 27 citizens of Australia, 12 of Indonesia, 9 of the Great Britain, 4 of Germany, 4 of Belgium, 3 of Philippines, by ones of Canada, New Zealand, USA and Hong Kong [43] (some persons had a double citizenship) [Russell, 2014]. The international investigation of the accident continues. The crash attracted a lot of attention not only on the part of politics but also international law scholars. The aim of the article is to analyze Russia s attempts to put the responsibility for the downing of MH-17 on the shoulders of Ukraine. Due to the fact that the aircraft was shot down and fell on the territory which at that moment was occupied by the so-called pro-russian fighters controlled by the the Russian Federation authorities, the latter was in a very delicate situation. It is logical that from the moment of the catastrophe, Russia, its representatives, doctrine, mass media covering the news all focused on а) accusing Ukrainian authorities of downing the Boeingon the own initiative or with the assistance of the West, primarily the USA; b) discrediting the investigation of the accident; c) criticising the idea and procedures to establish an international tribunal with a view to prosecute individuals responsible for the offense of 17 July 2014. Актуальні проблеми міжнародних відносин. Випуск The accusations of the Boeing downing became the most crucial course of Russia s actions: the point was to deflect suspicion from the Russian Federation, engaged in the hostilities in Donetsk and Luhansk regions against the Armed Forces of Ukraine and volunteer battalions. Russia is argued to conduct the aggressive war against Ukraine. On 18 July 2014, Vladimir Putin made a special statement on the Boeing tragedy, although the Russian Federation, according to assurances of the Russian leaders, was not and could not have been involved in the accident: Certainly the state in whose skies the catastrophe occurred shall bear responsibility for this terrible tragedy This catastrophe would not have happened if there were peace on this land and the hostilities in the southeast of Ukraine did not resume We must do everything that depends on us to make the objective view of this event that would receive wide advertisement both in our country, Ukraine and worldwide [51]. Other representatives of Russia upheld the above position repeatedly and consistently. Thus, on 15 October 2014, Dmitry Medvedev stated: Ukraine bears the whole responsibility for all flight accidents that have occurred in its sky. In addition, if at one time or another Ukraine did not control part of its territory, the Ukrainian authorities should recollect courage and confess that they do not control this territory, the territory is a hot spot and request to change the air maps. They haven t done that and it is a gross violation under the international air law... I am not an expert in the field of aircraft accidents investigation but I can say a few things: the state shall bear responsibility for the accident in the sky over its territory simply on the basis of international law [69]. Envoy Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, the member of International legal council of the Russian Foreign Ministry, the UN International arbitrary of the law of the sea, doctor of law, Vladimir Kotlyar expressed a more sincere opinion about this situation calling it a provocation with Malaysian aircraft on 17 July 2014 in the sky over the territory of Ukraine controlled by Kyiv with almost 300 passengers on the board was unlikely to be shot down accidently at the time when a number of the EU states opposed the USA demands to slap sanctions on Russia must be persuaded and subsequent shameless delay in dosclosing the results of the investigation by the Netherlands [Котляр, 2015]. On 14 October 2014, Deputy Head of Federal Air Transport Agency Oleh Storchevoy substantiated the accusation against Ukraine as following: The fact that the Ukrainian authorities using combat aircraft and heavy weapons in conflict area at the east of Ukraine failed to close the sky for the passage of the civil aircraft became the fundamental and primary cause of the accident The requirement of Article 9 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation that State may reserve the right in exceptional circumstances or during a period of emergency, or in the interest of public safety, temporarily restrict or prohibit flying over the whole or any part of its territory, is not fulfilled [66]. The representatives of Russian international legal doctrine made an attempt to justify the statements by Putin, Medvedev and other representatives of Russia that the blame for a crime committed on the territory of a state is put on this state. In October 2015 at the meeting of working group of Head of the State Duma of Russia on legal analysis of legislative procedures and acts adopted in Ukraine, the head of international law department of Moscow State Institute of International Relations of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia Aleksandr Vylegzhanin stated: We consider that the rule of international aircraft law from the standpoint of ICAO standards (International Organization of Civil Aviation) provides for the responsibility for an aircraft accident to be imposed not on the person who shot it down but on the state who were responsible for the route. I am referring to air communicators who set on the Malaysian Boeing altitude and route, gave corresponding instructions... Russia should prepare its counter claims to show that 50 Actual problems of international relations. Release the responsibility for this accident irrespective of persons who shot down that Malaysian Boeing shall be put on the territorially sovereign state represented in ICAO [77]. The former Deputy Chairman of the Interstate Aviation Committee Aleksandr Knievel elaborated on this position: The burden of responsibility lies, first of all, on Ukraine. The legal pillar stone of modern air law is the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, with annexes and so-called recommended practices. Moreover, since 14 November 2013, Annex 19 Safety management applies. The above-mentioned documents cover the cases of civil flights over the territory of hostilities. The Recommended practice (Doc 9554-AN/932 first edition 1990) has a Manual Concerning Safety Measures Relating to Military Activities Potentially Hazardous to Civil Aircraft Operations. ICAO adopted this document in 1988 after the US cruiser destroyed an Iranian civilian aircraft by a missile. Unfortunately, not all states apply the documents written literally in the blood, which brings about new tragedies. On 4 October 2001, the Russian aircraft, Tu-154M was shot over the Black sea in the area of responsibility of Ukrainian organization of air traffic control. Ukraine has not recognized its responsibility for that accident. What s surprising is that ICAO did not find Kyiv guilty in that accident. The history repeats this time with the Malaysian Boeing-777 and passengers on its board downed in the sky over Ukraine and once again ICAO kept a discreet silence. There is no reaction from the International Aviation Committee. The IAC is obligated to give explanations about the responsibility from the international legal point of view. Few people know that on 24 September 1993 the Heads of Governments of the CIS adopted the Council Decision On ensuring the safety of civil aircraft operations in the zones of local military conflicts. It authorized the competent bodies of member states of Commonwealth and Republic of Georgia together with the IAC to take legal, military, organizational and technical measures to prevent the civil aviation from the potential threat for the flights of civil aircraft in the areas of local armed conflicts. I will cite the key passages from ICAO documents. Try to grasp the meaning: The responsibility for taking measures to guarantee safety of international flights of civil aircraft shall be imposed on states providing air traffic services in the airspace affected by the conflict. The state responsible for providing traffic services should determine the geographic area of conflict, estimate the potential danger of flights of civil aircraft of international aviation and determine whether should the area of conflict be avoided or the flights over this area may be permitted subject to some conditions. The incorrect determination of flight risks over the area of armed conflict by Ukraine is the main reason of the accident in the sky over this country. In accordance with international law, the authorities of Ukraine and organization of air traffic control Ukraerorukh bear the whole responsibility for the Malaysian Boeing crash. Blame is not to be put on fighters or the Kyiv authorities label them, terrorists, in this case. Even if we suppose that the missile surface-to-air was launched from the territory under their control. They are only the participants of regional hostilities, whether they are lawful or not, is another question. Only Kyiv is responsible for the safety of air traffic in the area of the conflict. Besides that the Euro control should also share the responsibility because Ukraine is its member and it had agreed the flight route of Malaysian Boeing before its departure from Amsterdam. After all, they closed the sky over Crimea in no time, although there were no hostilities there [Птичкин, 2014]. The member of the board of the World Flight Safety Foundation, the president of Consultations and analytical agency Safety of flights shared the strong feelings and stated: Since early March 2014 there have been worrying developments taking place in the air of Ukraine Актуальні проблеми міжнародних відносин. Випуск and it also assumes the area of Euro control responsibility. Why did Euro control prohibit the flights of its member-states over Crimea on the basis that its airspace safety cannot be guaranteed, while expressing no objection to the flights over the territory where hostilities were conducted? Only after the accident, the air space over Ukraine was closed. Why did the Euro control fail to hold meetings with the Army Forces of the Russian Federation, Ukraerorukh, NATO, Ministries of defense of Ukraine and the Russian Federation as required by the Manual Concerning Safety Measures Relating to Military Activities Potentially Hazardous to Civil Aircraft Operations? [Ячменникова, 2014]. First of all, we should note the obvious absurdity of assertions that the state on whose territory the crime was committed and not the offender allegedly should carry full responsibility (one may observe that right after the МH17 tragedy Russia began to refer to the respective territory as Donetsk region of Ukraine instead of Donetsk People s Republic like it used to). The actual (and the only) cause of the crash is not the incorrect flying control run, aircraft s speed, altitude and other variables, as Vylegzhanin states, not the incorrect determination of risks of flights over the area of hostilities by Ukraine, as Storchevoy, Knievel, Shelkovnikov and others consider, but the strike of Boeing by the missile. In fact, they confuse, whether Ukraine is to carry full responsibility or is primarily responsible because these are principally different approaches. Second of all, even the rules cited by Knievel indicate The responsibility for taking measures to guarantee safety of international flights of civil aircraft shall be imposed on states providing air traffic services in the airspace affected by the conflict. It means that it is presumed that we speak about the responsibility for taking measures to guarantee safety of international flights of civil aircraft but not about responsibility for crimes committed in respect of aircraft. Moreover, Knievel recognizes: when in case of the 4 October 2001 incident with the Russian aircraft, Tu-154M, which was shot over the Black sea in the area of responsibility of Ukrainian organization of air traffic control, ICAO failed to put the responsibility on Kyiv. In fact, ICAO acted in accordance with the rules of international law, which in no way imply the responsibility of the state in whose air the incident took place instead of the one whoc actually stroke an aircraft. Third, and yet another confirmation of the above statement, one should emphasize that the allegation about the prohibition of civil aircraft flights over the conflict zone is false. Convention on internation
Related Search
Similar documents
View more...
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks