The Netherlands and Malaysia are trying to find the way how to establish the U.N.-style court regarding downed flight MH-17. Could it be the best chance of a successful prosecution, or maybe you see other options? Read few comments.
With the releasing of CIA torture report the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism says that the US attorney general is under a legal duty to bring criminal charges against those responsible. How do you perceive this report in the framework of international law, what kind of consequences it might, should have? Read few comments.
Regarding MH-17 flight we have now UNSC resolution calling for independent international investigation. From the legal point of view how does this change the situation, if anyhow? Read few comments.
Regarding shootdown of MH-17 flight let’s say there are basically 2 scenarios. 1. State, means Russia or Ukraine did it. 2. Non-state actor – rebels – with some support of Russia did it. What could be the international reaction in terms of international law? Read few comments.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said: I would like to draw your attention to one absolutely key aspect: In line with international law, only the U.N. Security Council can sanction the use of force against a sovereign state. Any other pretext or method which might be used to justify the use of force against an independent sovereign state is inadmissible and can only be interpreted as an aggression.
The Centre for Constitutional Rights believes President George Bush approved torture when he approved enhanced interrogation techniques and the organization said all signatories to the convention on torture “are obligated to prosecute or extradite for prosecution anyone present in their territory they have a reasonable basis for believing has committed torture”.
Filed under: Politics, United States, US foreign policy | Tagged: Geoffrey Corn, George Bush, Hurst Hannum, International Law, Law, Paul Arnell, Politics, United States, US foreign policy | Leave a comment »