3 ms·

> In July, Russia vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution that would have established an international criminal tribunal to investigate the MH17 att

by orf 11y ago

> In July, Russia vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution that would have established an international criminal tribunal to investigate the MH17 attack. Nothing to hide, right?

dogma1138 11y ago
The US doesn't recognizes the ICC either. Countries do not like to surrender sovereignty to international bodies, the ICC only works when you have a big enough military to pluck your indited targets by force. If push comes to shove I can't see any nation openly surrender any of their citizens to an international court which is why while the ICC is a great idea in general it's more or less a sham. It's easy to prosecute people from the Balkans or Africa when you have the US or NATO forces doing the dirty work for you, it gets some what harder when you have to deal with nations that have actual power.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- ptaipale 11y ago
  This was not about ICC, this was to set up a specific tribunal to investigate this particular crime. A more relevant comparison might be the Lockerbie trial?
  - dogma1138 11y ago
    It was most likely the ICC, the UNSC is the only body that can instruct the ICC to start a tribunal and that's the role that the ICC plays for in the whole UN eco-system opening a completely separate international criminal tribunal to would be a bit odd especially since it won't have any mandates and I'm not even sure if the UNSC can do that. P.S. The Lockerbie trial wasn't an international tribunal, or an international trial it was awkwardly constructed due to the fact that neither the US nor the UK had a working extradition treaties with Libya and the case was not turned over to the ICC. The trial was conducted in the Netherlands yes but under Scottish law and that's because the dutch did had an extradition treaty with Libya as well as some weird treaty with presumably either the UK, the commonwealth or even historically the Kingdom of Scotland which allowed them to establish a Scottish court on dutch grounds.
Alupis 11y ago
Does nobody remember the rebels declaring the airspace off-limits to all aircraft backed-up by the promise to shoot any offending aircraft down? Many are quick to say the rebels should have known the difference between a military transport and a civilian plane - but shortly before the shootdown, the Ukraine military had been flying similar airplanes as troop transports - and with the unlikeliness of the airline being able to hear and respond to the rebels on radio (listening on different frequencies), it's easy to see how the sequence of events led to the downing of the airline. We also should remember the rebel leader's announcement on twitter that they had just shot down a military transport - only to redact the comment immediately following the news stories that began to run. In the end, this is an unfortunate tragedy -- but what sane airline knowingly flies over a self-declared war zone? [1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pro-russian-ukrainian-rebel-leader-claims-shoot-down-of-malaysia-airlines-jet/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pro-russian-ukrainian-rebel-lead... [2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10899657/Ukraine-rebels-shoot-down-plane-carrying-49.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/108...
- dogma1138 11y ago
  It doesn't matter what they've claimed they didn't had the authority to claim that in the 1st place. Now this doesn't say that common sense should not have been used and that the ICAO should not have released a direction to not fly over that area as it was an active war zone but that doesn't makes this any less of a crime. Accidents still happen but shooting down an airliner even in accident (which happened before) is still something that should be investigated, even for something as simple as compensation, and if this was not only in accident but also in either malice or negligence then there are sufficient grounds for criminal proceedings.
- tremon 11y ago
  No incidents had occurred at 10km (30,000 ft) cruising altitude. The highest aircraft shot down until then was at 6.3km (below 20,000 ft), which is why the 10km cruising lanes were still deemed safe (a judgement error, according to today's report). The report also notes that in the previous days, over "61 airlines from 32 states" crossed over Ukraine without incident. On the day of the incident, 160 flights were recorded. So apparently, 61 airlines flew over a self-declared war zone. I'm sure some of them must have been considered sane.

by orf 11y ago

> In July, Russia vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution that would have established an international criminal tribunal to investigate the MH17 attack. Nothing to hide, right?

dogma1138 11y ago

The US doesn't recognizes the ICC either. Countries do not like to surrender sovereignty to international bodies, the ICC only works when you have a big enough military to pluck your indited targets by force. If push comes to shove I can't see any nation openly surrender any of their citizens to an international court which is why while the ICC is a great idea in general it's more or less a sham. It's easy to prosecute people from the Balkans or Africa when you have the US or NATO forces doing the dirty work for you, it gets some what harder when you have to deal with nations that have actual power.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
ptaipale 11y ago
This was not about ICC, this was to set up a specific tribunal to investigate this particular crime. A more relevant comparison might be the Lockerbie trial?
- dogma1138 11y ago
  It was most likely the ICC, the UNSC is the only body that can instruct the ICC to start a tribunal and that's the role that the ICC plays for in the whole UN eco-system opening a completely separate international criminal tribunal to would be a bit odd especially since it won't have any mandates and I'm not even sure if the UNSC can do that. P.S. The Lockerbie trial wasn't an international tribunal, or an international trial it was awkwardly constructed due to the fact that neither the US nor the UK had a working extradition treaties with Libya and the case was not turned over to the ICC. The trial was conducted in the Netherlands yes but under Scottish law and that's because the dutch did had an extradition treaty with Libya as well as some weird treaty with presumably either the UK, the commonwealth or even historically the Kingdom of Scotland which allowed them to establish a Scottish court on dutch grounds.

Alupis 11y ago

Does nobody remember the rebels declaring the airspace off-limits to all aircraft backed-up by the promise to shoot any offending aircraft down? Many are quick to say the rebels should have known the difference between a military transport and a civilian plane - but shortly before the shootdown, the Ukraine military had been flying similar airplanes as troop transports - and with the unlikeliness of the airline being able to hear and respond to the rebels on radio (listening on different frequencies), it's easy to see how the sequence of events led to the downing of the airline. We also should remember the rebel leader's announcement on twitter that they had just shot down a military transport - only to redact the comment immediately following the news stories that began to run. In the end, this is an unfortunate tragedy -- but what sane airline knowingly flies over a self-declared war zone? [1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pro-russian-ukrainian-rebel-leader-claims-shoot-down-of-malaysia-airlines-jet/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pro-russian-ukrainian-rebel-lead... [2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10899657/Ukraine-rebels-shoot-down-plane-carrying-49.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/108...

dogma1138 11y ago
It doesn't matter what they've claimed they didn't had the authority to claim that in the 1st place. Now this doesn't say that common sense should not have been used and that the ICAO should not have released a direction to not fly over that area as it was an active war zone but that doesn't makes this any less of a crime. Accidents still happen but shooting down an airliner even in accident (which happened before) is still something that should be investigated, even for something as simple as compensation, and if this was not only in accident but also in either malice or negligence then there are sufficient grounds for criminal proceedings.
tremon 11y ago
No incidents had occurred at 10km (30,000 ft) cruising altitude. The highest aircraft shot down until then was at 6.3km (below 20,000 ft), which is why the 10km cruising lanes were still deemed safe (a judgement error, according to today's report). The report also notes that in the previous days, over "61 airlines from 32 states" crossed over Ukraine without incident. On the day of the incident, 160 flights were recorded. So apparently, 61 airlines flew over a self-declared war zone. I'm sure some of them must have been considered sane.