OFF TOPIC > Russia/Ukraine/Nato
Russia-Ukraine ICJ ruling
gringo:
Almost, if not entirely, ignored in all western MSM today was the final judgement of the ICJ in the case brought by Ukraine against Russia. Given the ruling, this is not at all surprising. Ukraine instigated proceedings against Russia in 2017. Today the final judgement was delivered;
" Kyiv had accused Moscow of being a “terrorist state” whose support for pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine was a harbinger of the full-fledged 2022 invasion.
It wanted Russia to compensate all civilians caught up in the conflict, as well as victims from Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, which was shot down over eastern Ukraine.
But the International Court of Justice (ICJ) tossed out most of Ukraine’s pleas, ruling only that Russia was “failing to take measures to investigate facts... regarding persons who have allegedly committed an offence.”
The ICJ “rejects all other submissions made by the Ukraine,” it said in a statement."
gringo:
The dismissal of the compensation demand for the downing of MH17 will re-open that can of worms. We may get to the bottom of who really shot down MH17. The "Kangaroo Court" in the Netherlands and its "rulings" have been dismissed by the ICJ with this ruling. The Malaysians, whose plane was shot down, maybe will be allowed to take part in any real "impartial and independent investigation". They were excluded from the shameful proceedings in the Netherlands which relied almost entirely on Ukrainian SBU "evidence". The proceedings were an affront to truth or justice. Seems the ICJ agree.
gringo:
Informative piece on the MH17 shootdown and sham proceedings from 2017 by the late great Robert Parry;
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/09/28/troubling-gaps-in-the-new-mh-17-report/
gringo:
https://consortiumnews.com/2024/02/01/icj-rules-against-ukraine-v-russia-on-terrorism-mh17/
From the above;
“Consequently, the alleged supply of weapons to various armed groups operating in Ukraine… fall outside the material scope” of the anti-terrorism financing convention, the Court ruled. The Court also said it had no evidence to show that any of the armed militias in Donbass fighting against the government could be characterized as terrorist groups.
The ICJ found only that Russia was, “failing to take measures to investigate facts… regarding persons who have allegedly committed an offense.” It added that the court “rejects all other submissions made by the Ukraine.” [/b]
Steve_uk:
--- Quote from: gringo on February 01, 2024, 05:12:PM --- https://consortiumnews.com/2024/02/01/icj-rules-against-ukraine-v-russia-on-terrorism-mh17/
From the above;
“Consequently, the alleged supply of weapons to various armed groups operating in Ukraine… fall outside the material scope” of the anti-terrorism financing convention, the Court ruled. The Court also said it had no evidence to show that any of the armed militias in Donbass fighting against the government could be characterized as terrorist groups.
The ICJ found only that Russia was, “failing to take measures to investigate facts… regarding persons who have allegedly committed an offense.” It added that the court “rejects all other submissions made by the Ukraine.” [/b]
--- End quote ---
In other words, it wasn't in the ICJ's remit to investigate thoroughly whether Russia was a state sponsor of terrorism. It did find, however, that Russia was in breach of international law. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/world/top-un-court-ruling-defines-russia-violated-international-law-says-ukraine/3125215
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version