Доклад Тальявини попытка: уравнять агрессора и жертву.
Содержит совершенно вопиющие моменты. Например:
1) In the first instance, there seems to be little doubt that if the Russian peacekeepers were attacked, Russia had the right to defend them using military means proportionate to the attack. Hence the Russian use of force for defensive purposes during the first phase of the conflict would be legal. (Volume I, p. 23)
Even if it were assumed that Georgia was repelling an attack, e.g. in response to South Ossetian attacks against Georgian populated villages in the region, according to international law, its armed response would have to be both necessary and proportional. (Volume I, p. 23)
There is the question of whether the use of force by Georgia in South Ossetia, beginning with the shelling of Tskhinvali during the night of 7/8 August 2008, was justifiable under international law. It was not. (Volume I, p. 22)
Таким образом России дается право защищать своих военнослужаших на территории другого государства, а Грузии отказывается в праве защищать своих граждан на своей же территории.
2) Так же:
III. Threats issued by Georgia
...
(3)had engaged in a comprehensive military build-up with the assistance of third parties such as
the US, including the acquisition of modern weaponry. (Volume II, p. 233)
Опять таки Грузии отказывают в праве военного строительства. Ну и еще США неявно обвиняют.
3) Так же, документ содержит произвольные интерпретации международного права и устава ООН:
Южная Осетия объявляется субьектом международного права, и подводится под защиту статей 2(4) и 51 этого устава,
Conclusion: Despite the differing status of the parties to the conflict (Georgia as a state,
South Ossetia as an entity short of statehood and legally a part of Georgia), the prohibition of
the use of force as endorsed in the UN Charter applies to their relations. (Volume II, p. 242)
а затем, на основании этого, наступление на Цхинвали оъявляется "даже агрессией, а значит и с большей убедительностью неправомерным применением силы":
Therefore the attacks by the armed forces of Georgia against the city of Tskhinvali and the villages by means of heavy weapons might even be qualified as acts of aggression under Art. 3 (a) and (b) of UN Resolution 3314, and a fortiori as prohibited use of force. They were not directed against the territory of “another state”, but against the territory of an entity short of statehood outside the jurisdiction of the attacking state. But as argued above, the prohibition of the use of force applies here as well. (Volume II, p. 243)
1) In the first instance, there seems to be little doubt that if the Russian peacekeepers were attacked, Russia had the right to defend them using military means proportionate to the attack. Hence the Russian use of force for defensive purposes during the first phase of the conflict would be legal. (Volume I, p. 23)
Even if it were assumed that Georgia was repelling an attack, e.g. in response to South Ossetian attacks against Georgian populated villages in the region, according to international law, its armed response would have to be both necessary and proportional. (Volume I, p. 23)
There is the question of whether the use of force by Georgia in South Ossetia, beginning with the shelling of Tskhinvali during the night of 7/8 August 2008, was justifiable under international law. It was not. (Volume I, p. 22)
Таким образом России дается право защищать своих военнослужаших на территории другого государства, а Грузии отказывается в праве защищать своих граждан на своей же территории.
2) Так же:
III. Threats issued by Georgia
...
(3)had engaged in a comprehensive military build-up with the assistance of third parties such as
the US, including the acquisition of modern weaponry. (Volume II, p. 233)
Опять таки Грузии отказывают в праве военного строительства. Ну и еще США неявно обвиняют.
3) Так же, документ содержит произвольные интерпретации международного права и устава ООН:
Южная Осетия объявляется субьектом международного права, и подводится под защиту статей 2(4) и 51 этого устава,
Conclusion: Despite the differing status of the parties to the conflict (Georgia as a state,
South Ossetia as an entity short of statehood and legally a part of Georgia), the prohibition of
the use of force as endorsed in the UN Charter applies to their relations. (Volume II, p. 242)
а затем, на основании этого, наступление на Цхинвали оъявляется "даже агрессией, а значит и с большей убедительностью неправомерным применением силы":
Therefore the attacks by the armed forces of Georgia against the city of Tskhinvali and the villages by means of heavy weapons might even be qualified as acts of aggression under Art. 3 (a) and (b) of UN Resolution 3314, and a fortiori as prohibited use of force. They were not directed against the territory of “another state”, but against the territory of an entity short of statehood outside the jurisdiction of the attacking state. But as argued above, the prohibition of the use of force applies here as well. (Volume II, p. 243)