Putin sucks

[Velar Fricative]

Headline mine.

www.wsj.com/articles/russian-rejection-of-u-n-tribunal-casts-doubt-on-possibility-of-mh17-prosecution-1437137198

MOSCOW—Russian President Vladimir Putin says he won’t accept a proposal for the U.N. Security Council to set up a criminal tribunal over the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, casting doubt on the prospect of bringing those responsible to justice under international law.



In a phone call Thursday with Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, Mr. Putin called the proposal “untimely and counterproductive,” according to a Kremlin statement. He said a “thorough and objective” international investigation had to finish before countries took any decisions on how to punish those guilty of the crime.



Russia holds a veto in the U.N. Security Council, giving it the final say on any of the council’s efforts. A year after the crash in eastern Ukraine, there are other avenues to pursue a prosecution, but the challenges are deep.



“Not all hope is lost,” said David Scheffer, a law professor at Northwestern University and former U.S. Ambassador at Large for War Crimes Issues. “Many times, these efforts at building tribunals go through many stages of setbacks and then forward movement, until you actually get the court established.”



A total of 298 people died aboard the Boeing 777 flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur. A five-country team investigating the incident led by the Dutch has said their primary theory is that the aircraft was downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile shot from rebel-held territory. Rebels have denied downing the aircraft. Russia has suggested Ukraine is responsible.



Countries with citizens on board—including the Netherlands, Malaysia, Australia and Belgium—and Ukraine are pushing the nascent effort to establish a tribunal. The U.K., which also had citizens on board, also backed the effort on Friday.



Any tribunal is likely to grow out of the results of an international investigation. The Dutch are spearheading two such probes: one led by the Dutch Safety Board, tasked with ascertaining the cause of the crash, and the other by the Dutch prosecutor’s office, charged with finding suspects and building a case.



The safety board’s results are due in October. Any criminal charges would come later.



Moscow has attacked both inquiries already, accusing investigators of denying Russia full participation and reproaching the safety board for what it called “inadequate compliance” with the rules of the International Civil Aviation Organization. Dutch officials have rejected those accusations.



Russia has suggested the U.N. Security Council set up its own international probe. Even if that happens, it is unlikely Russia would ever accept the results of any investigation that ultimately blamed Moscow or the rebels it backs for the crash.



Philippe Sands, Professor of Law and Director of the Centre on International Courts and Tribunals at the University College London, agreed that an authoritative account of the facts is necessary before deciding what should happen next, but he acknowledged the difficulty of that task in this case.



“Russia’s track record does not suggest they are about to jump smilingly and enthusiastically into a full-scale investigation of what happened,” Mr. Sands said.



Russia is arguing that a tribunal isn't only premature but also unsuitable. “The U.N. Security Council has never created any tribunals. in the event of civilian aircraft crashes,” Mr. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said at a news conference Thursday, according to state news agency RIA Novosti.



In a statement this week, the Russian Foreign Ministry called tribunals previously set up by the Security Council to deal with Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia “ineffective, expensive, too long and extremely politicized.”



So far, Malaysia has circulated a draft of the proposal for an international tribunal at the Security Council. If Russia vetoes it, the countries pursuing the idea still have a number of alternatives at their disposal.



One possibility is for them to pursue a tribunal through the U.N. General Assembly rather than the Security Council, according to Mr. Scheffer. He cited the Khmer Rouge Tribunal in Cambodia as an example.


Outside the confines of the U.N., countries could strike a treaty agreeing to establish a criminal tribunal. The Nuremberg Trials after World War II, for instance, were established by a treaty signed by the U.S., the U.K., the Soviet Union and France. Additional countries then ratified the Nuremberg charter and participated.



The trial that adjudicated the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland resulted from a treaty that established a Scottish court in the Netherlands to hear a case against two Libyan suspects.



A narrow case could potentially go before the International Court of Justice, a U.N. court based in The Hague that adjudicates disputes between states. But while the ICJ can order a state to pay damages and potentially assign blame in a dispute, it doesn’t prosecute individuals.



After a U.S. Navy missile cruiser shot down Iran Air Flight 655 over the Persian Gulf in 1988, Iran filed a case against the U.S. in the ICJ, seeking compensation. The case was settled in 1996, when the U.S. agreed to pay $131.8 million, including $61.8 million for heirs of the Iranian victims.



Earlier this month, the leaders of the two self-declared rebel republics in eastern Ukraine asked the Security Council to set up a tribunal to investigate war crimes they said Kiev had perpetrated in their region.



It is unclear whether Russia or Ukraine would agree to a broader tribunal that covered the whole conflict, which would include MH17. Such a move would open Ukraine to more scrutiny but potentially win greater participation from the rebels.



A final, less likely option is the International Criminal Court, set up to investigate and prosecute only cases of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes or crimes of aggression. Ukraine isn’t a party to the ICC, but could sign up to the treaty in full and approve retroactive jurisdiction, or it could make a special declaration giving the court jurisdiction only for a case related to MH17.



Ukraine already has made such a special declaration for crimes committed during the Maidan protests that led to the downfall of former President Viktor Yanukovych last year. The ICC has launched a preliminary examination of those events.



But the court can only prosecute such crimes when states involved are unwilling or unable to do so themselves. Because the Dutch prosecutor’s office has volunteered to investigate MH17, the case could fall outside the ICC’s purview. The court must also determine that the incident fits one of the four specific types of crime it handles.



Meanwhile, individuals are free to pursue their own cases. Family members of MH17 victims filed a lawsuit this week in a U.S. District Court in Chicago against Igor Girkin, a Russian citizen and former Ukrainian rebel defense commander who goes by the nom de guerre Igor Strelkov, demanding a total of $850 million in damages, according to their lawyer, Floyd Wisner.



Asked about the case by the Russian news outlet Gazeta.ru, Mr. Strelkov declined to comment. He said he was troubled that the families “valued the lives of their relatives in monetary terms.”

[IIOY]

I am bitterly LOL that Russia is vetoing an investigation into the civilian airplane that was shot down by Russia.  You don't say.

ETA: Genuine LOL at "headline mine."

[josieposy]

I thought this was going to be about the video of the Russian fighters going through passenger belongings at the crash site.