Summary
I. Introduction. II. The Conflict. III. The Contradictory Factual Claims Of Russia And Georgia. A. Georgian Factual Claims. B. Russian Factual Claims. IV. International Response. V. International Law and Alleged Human Rights Violations Within the Conflict. A. Application of International Human Rights Laws to Russia's and Georgia's Factual Claims. 1. Russia's Factual Claims and Their Legal Implications Under International Human Rights Law. 2. Georgia's Factual Claims and Their Legal Implications Under International Human Rights Law. B. Georgia and Russia Before the World Court. 1. Georgia's Case Before the World Court. 2. Russia's Case Before the World Court. C. World Court's Decision. D. Examining the Conflict's Human Rights Legal Issues and the World Court's Indecision. VI. International Self-Defense Under the U.N. Charter and the Russian and Georgian Conflict. A. Expansionist View of Article 51. B. Strict View and Narrow Reading of Article 51. C. Application of Self-Defense and International Law to the Russian and Georgian Conflict. 1. Analyzing Russia's Claim of International Self-Defense. 2. Analyzing Georgia's Claim of International Self-Defense. D. A Substantial Need for a Clarification of Article 51 Self-Defense. 1. A Comparison of the Pros and Cons of the Expansionist and Narrow Viewpoints. 2. The Need for a Defined, Flexible Approach to International Self-Defense and Addendum to Article 51. VII. Analysis of the International Fact-finding System's Flaws as Indicated By The Russian-Georgian Conflict. A. Indications of the Failure of the Current International Fact-Finding System in the Russian-Georgian Conflict. B. Fact-Finding Organizations in the International Community. C. The IHFFC: Its Organizational Deficiencies and Benefits. D. The IIFFMCG: Its Organizational Deficiencies and Benefits. E. Possible Structure for a Successful International Fact-Finding System. VIII. Conclusion.
See the full content of this document
Extract
Skirmishing for Information: The Flaws of the International Legal System as Evidenced by the Russian-Georgian Conflict of 2008
J.D. Candidate, The University of Iowa College of Law, May 2010. I would like to thank everyone at Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems for their assistance on this Note, especially Hudson Kingston, William Baresel, Michael Bartholomew, and Umair Kazi. I would also like to thank my parents, Ted and Mary Musselman, for their never ending support.
I. Introduction In early August 2008, tensions between the Georgian military and South ossetian separatists escalated to the point of widespread violence.1 on August 8, 2008, the Russian Federation ("Russia") sent its military into Georgian territory.2 Russian and Georgian troops continued to clash at various levels of intensity for days, with Russian troops remaining in Georgia for well over a month.3 Although exact numbers appear impossible to obtain, it is alleged that the conflict resulted in the deaths of hundreds of people, the destruction of cities and villages, and the displacement of tens of thousands of people.4Recognizing the importance of international perception, Georgia and Russia have released contradictory factual accounts supporting their respective actions.5 Initial reports and articles from Western media outlets focused on Russia as the aggressor and the escalator of the conflict.6 Many Western states and organizations, such as the United States and the European Union, relied on these accounts and broke diplomatic ties with Russia.7Subsequently, as independent groups began to gather more information directly from the conflict areas, the international community began to cease its one-sided rhetoric and resume ties with Russia.8 During the conflict, Russia and Georgia, aided by their own factual accounts, battled for international support by exchanging allegations of international law violations. Each country claimed that the other had violated the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination ("CERD"), and that the other country's attacks were unjustified.9 After major violence ceased, Georgia took its allegations to the World Court, which published a preliminary decision concerning the alleged racial discrimination that took place during the conflict. 10 Noting the convoluted nature of the conflict and the lack of credible information, the World Court refused to place blame or settle the events of the conflict. 11Instead, the Court reaffirmed the parties' duties under the CERD.12 Moreover, Russia and Georgia provided differing factual accounts, claiming that their respective military actions conformed to U.N. Article 51's allowance of the use of force in self-defense.13 To this date, neither the international community nor the International Court of Justice ("ICJ") has issued an official position on whether either country had the right to claim self-defense. The Russian-Georgian conflict has exposed two major flaws in the international legal system. First, the international legal structure currently lacks a legitimate standing fact-finding system, which forced the international community to rely on Russia's and Georgia's conflicting and uncorroborated factual accounts. As a result, the international community was unable to take a unified stance, and the World Court was unable to assign culpability to either country. Furthermore, the one-sided international reaction to the conflict disrupted diplomatic attempts to end the conflict, and at the same time put Russia on the defensive.14 Second, the international system lacks a clear definition of self-defense under international law as demonstrated by the legal ambiguity concerning Russia's and Georgia's legal right to self-defense under the U.N. Charter.15 Using the Russian-Georgian conflict as a case study, this Note will analyze the failings of the international self-defense doctrine and the international fact-finding system, both of which permit countries to skirt responsibility for their actions during times of conflict. It will go on to advise changes to the current international fact-finding system and the current self-defense doctrine. These changes are an attempt to create an international environment that will allow for legal accountability in the wake of an armed skirmish such as the Russian-Georgian Conflict. Parts II, III, and IV of this Note address the differing Russian and Georgian factual accoun...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
