|
| Offical Statement on the Russian Presence in Syria; Addressing international concerns and condemnation, Legal Basis of the deployment | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 21 2014, 03:18 PM (35 Views) | |
| Bobithy | Nov 21 2014, 03:18 PM Post #1 |
|
Great Leader of the Korean People
|
![]() Sergey Lavrov Minister of Foreign Affairs Russian Federation Esteemed representatives of the global community, I have been asked to come before you today by the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, and the Chairman of the Federal Security Service to directly address the concerns of the international community in regards to our current direct assist and deployment of asset to the Syrian Arab Republic. There has been much condemnation by the United States of America who has even seen fit to place additional sanctions against our country despite the legal right of Russia to operate in foreign countries at the invitation of said countries; in this case the United Nation recognized government of the Syrian Arab Republic under President Assad. To begin I would like to point out that the conflict in the Syrian Arab Republic is defined as a NIAC according to the Additional Protocol II of the Geneva Convention as well as customary international humanitarian laws. It has been considered a NIAC since the Spring of 2012 when rebel groups organized, which was defined by pushing out of the definition of localized riots and unrest and spreading to a organized rebellion against the government. See Article 1, Paragraphs 1 and 2, of the AP2. All of Europe, except Monaco and Turkey, agree to AP2 for the information of the international community. When a NIAC, which is a Non-International Armed Conflict, exists the following is the case: Anyone who takes up arms who is not the State or working as a member of a State agency are immediately subject to the national law and treated as criminals with no protections under international law according to Common Article 31.9 and Articles 4, 5, and 6 of AP2. In addition, per the conflicts definition as a NIAC, the President of Syria and his Ministers are protected by Rationae Materiae and Rationae Personae until such a time as Assad, the President, is removed from office. He can only be prosecuted by a UNSC-sanctioned International Criminal Tribunal, which means it would have to be approved by the UNSC. Until then his legal rights remain. I must also point out that the French, supported by the European Union as a whole, are rightfully and commendably operating in Mali to protect the government and have been using the same legal reasoning we have brought up today and have stood for this entire time in Syria. I feel it prudent to also point out that the United States of America accurately supports this operation by France and others though it is not directly involved. Now, I would like to state that the United States of America is not one of the many countries that follow AP2. These group of countries include Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Eritrea, Somalia and other equatable countries. This is, of course, the choice of the United States which makes sense given their foreign military and political policy. The US Global War on Terror states that "the US is involved in NIAC's with varying armed groups", but this is completely questionable from a legal standpoint as the United States does not follow NIAC Law. Thus their legality claims for Russia to remove itself from Syria, who invited us to assist them, are unfounded through their own decisions to ignore the law and their own support for similar operations. Lastly, due to the legality of our deployment to Syria, as outlined in my statement, if the United States involves itself in the conflict, it would turn the NIAC into a IAC (International Armed Conflict) by Proxy, and would legally be considered an act of war against the Russian Federation as laid out by the Tadić Decision. This almost happened in the past in Nicaragua in the 1970's (see the Nicaragua Case). Nicaragua, as we all remember, was a point where the Cold War almost turned hot. As the US seems to fervent to avoid this situation from occurring again, we suggest that they respect the rule of law and understand the reasons and legality of our deployment and respect that this conflict is one in which the Russian Federation, within the law, will be supporting a legal government as seen under the United Nations. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Round 5 · Next Topic » |








10:54 AM Jul 11
