Speech by the Director of the Legal Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation at the International Scientific and Practical Conference on International Law
Interesting what War Correspondent Marat Khairullen wrote on this topic at his Telegram:
"America never ceases to amaze us. In a desire to show and once again prove their own superiority, the Americans decided that they themselves would determine the developed and underdeveloped countries. Do you know on what principle?
Who can the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecute and who cannot. Russia, according to the Americans, the ICC has the right to shake, but Israel in no case. Because, firstly, Israel did not arrange any genocide (Gaza, apparently, self-destructed). And secondly, it is a democratic state capable of independently investigating war crimes. Unlike Russia, for example.
Therefore, the ICC must withdraw the arrest warrant for Netanyahu. Otherwise, it will not be well. Representatives of the ICC and their children have already been banned from entering the United States.
"And what right, excuse me, does America have to evaluate the work of the International Criminal Court, if back in 2002 the United States withdrew its signature without ratification?
For reference: the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was signed in 1998 and ratified by 137 countries as of 2023.
Russia signed it in 2000.
The prehistory of the creation of the ICC is inextricably linked with its prototype - the International Tribunal for Yugoslavia. The consideration of these cases determined the need for the work of the war crimes and genocide tribunals on a permanent basis, which was done at a conference convened by the UN General Assembly.
"Recall that in August last year, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin, accusing him of a war crime - the illegal deportation of children from the territories of Ukraine to Russia. During the period of hostilities. We will not assess this now. Because it is clear how the facts were turned inside out.
Putin became the fourth leader against whom warrants were issued. Previously, warrants were issued against Omar al-Bashir (Sudan), Gaddafi (Libya), Gbagbo (Côte d'Ivoire - acquitted by the ICC).
"In this case, we are more interested in how the rhetoric of the collective West can change so much: before the request for a warrant for Israel, it was stated that the ICC, an authoritative international criminal prosecution body, employs the most qualified specialists in the field of international military law. But then there were claims against Israel - and that's it, the specialists immediately became unqualified. And in general, the ICC can only judge Africa and other "thugs", but not the West and its allies. What is this at all?!
I thought that was a very interesting and informative speech. Thanks, Karl.
Does it surprise me to see all the duplicity, arrogance, and 24 carat hypocrisy from the west? Nope. It's kinda the expected norm nowadays. At this stage of my life (autumn) I look back and think things were better, then realize, no, they weren't: you just didn't know back then. And it's in that context I sometimes remind myself that I used to look to Washington as the voice of what was right and proper in the world: now, now I look to Moscow first, then Beijing a distant second. Quite the sea-change!
Personally I think the west is rotten to the core: debauched, corrupt beyond redemption, and totally lacking any scruple - there is no low to which they will not stoop.
Truly, I hope my children and grandchildren can live in a better, more equal and prosperous world, but since they all live in Europe I realize that is no longer possible. It saddens me to see what we have become.
What impresses me about the Director's speech is its utter candour and truthfulness. The pygmies that inhabit the halls of the Western political elites shrink in contrast to the principled advocates of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This is now so glaring so obvious yet most worrying reminded as I am of the confrontational idiocy exhibited by current UK Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron and late prime minister Boris Johnson both of whom share a common education and grooming at that educational icon of the UK ruling class Eton College. Imprisoned by their delusions their only hope is to slug it out in the style of not so sedate on the Global playing fields of Eton. God help us!!
Truthfulness and resulting credibility are Russia are the Global Majority's best tools in its confrontation with the West. And yes, I said as much many years ago. The key is to disseminate these writings to as many as possible. It's our way of nailing a thesis to the door of the Cathedral.
Given neither Russia, nor the US nor Israel have ratified the Rome Treaty, and have all declared that they no longer intend to ratify the treaty i.e. they are outside the jurisdiction of the ICC, it seems irrelevant whatever the ICC does or says.
Yes and no. It's a tool of control/hegemony, and that's the #1 issue. The question: What sort of International Law is humanity to have, and why shouldn't it apply to one and all?
Humans have spent 99% of their time on this pale blue dot in small hunter gatherer communities, forming the architecture of our present social psychology behaviour patterns.
Given we didn't go extinct, it seems fair to suppose that defining 'law' in such groups of c150 people (i.e. Dunbar number) would have been relatively easier than in larger groups of millions or indeed all 8+billion now alive.
The old techniques of taking any emergent psychopathic individuals, once their behaviour threatened the survival of the group, would have resulted in such an individual having an 'accident' on a hunting / gathering trip, was left to rot on the tundra, and everyone else would quietly approve.
Not sure how we can modernise such clearly highly effective techniques to ensure the long term survival of humans since our very recent evolution into much larger groups, entirely caused by high energy density fossil fuels that are running out?
This dilemma is one I've explored for decades--how do we get culture to regain control over human actions given our societal size? I've yet to discover a solution.
- Ukraine has attacked (disabled) a Russian ballistic missile early warning radar in Armavir, Russia
- has the potential to cripple Russia’s ability to respond to nuclear threats, and effectively triggers 19c of Russia’s nuclear response doctrine
- Ukraine is just beginning its escalations with ATACMs etc . So this is the main reason we are now at a potential crossroads
- If Ukraine gets the go ahead to use ATACMS and perhaps even the Storm Shadows, Taurus, etc., on Russian soil - then all hell could break loose as Russia has not demonstrated the capability to stop the ATACMS reliably - meanwhile the unprecedented Russian tactical nuclear missiles Mil exercises continue.
Have yet to read Simplicius's latest. Russia will likely use its new long distance loitering drones to attack launchers once they're revealed, thus removing one part of the problem. Russia will also make its AD network denser. It would be nice to know the specifics of the Putin/Lukashenko chat as that might affect MoD planning and place the political goals over the military. We'll need to wait and see.
a very timely article karl.. thanks so much for sharing it...
i wonder if it is possible to find and share the article he directs readers to as well -
"I would like to inform you that this year the issue of the legality of the ICC's activities was the subject of a study by the International Legal Council under the Russian Foreign Ministry. His Conclusion is published in International Affairs. I advise all of you to read this publication."
thanks karl... would you like me to share an english translation with you of this?? fire me an e mail or private message if that is possible here on substack if so..
Just arrived at The Dalles and our lodgings. What I'll do is put in in the queue and make it available to all readers. Probably be published Monday given what's in front of it now. Thanks for the offer. Too bad MoA's down, as it would fit there on Sunday's open thread.
There are two core principles involved with Law, namely jurisdiction and consent. The latter has to do with two or more parties agreeing to be bound by some sort of law established either by statute (written code) or particular agreement, often in the form of a contract.
Jurisdiction has to do with Authority, usually in the form of a Judge or Ruler operating in some sort of Court of Law (or Monarch) wherein all parties in any given controversy can assemble and submit to a Judgement rendered within that Court, usually via Monarch, Judge or Jury of Peers. For this authority to be respected, either brute force is used or all parties assembled consent to honour the ruling rendered in the Court.
In international Law, the parties involved are nation states with their own language, customs and laws, usually with their own Courts of Law. A truly para-national Court, though, must have its own jurisdictional powers and authority I think there are two core principles involved with Law, namely jurisdiction and consent. The latter has to do with two or more parties agreeing to be bound by some sort of law established either by statute (written code) or particular agreement, often in the form of a contract.
Then jurisdiction has to do with Authority, usually in the form of a Judge or Ruler. In this context there are Courts of Law (or of Monarchs) wherein all parties in any given controversy can assemble and then a decision rendered via a third party, usually a Judge, Monarch or Common Law 'Jury of Peers'. For this authority to be respected, either brute force is used or ideally all parties assembled consent to honour the ruling rendered in the Court.
In international Law, the parties involved are nation states with their own language, customs and laws, usually setting up their own Courts of Law to adjudicate controversies or punish crime. A truly para-national Court, though, must have its own jurisdictional authority and all parties involved must abide by the Court's rulings even when they are unfavourable to their nation and people.
Moreover, there must be safeguards against corruption. How on earth can this be done, especially in secular societies who recognize no transcendent authority or Law?
I don't believe it can. The simplest best way is probably the oldest: a single Emperor whose authority trumps all national jurisdictions who has final say over inter-national controversies. But how to ensure the Emperor is not corrupt? There can be no guarantee any more than any other national leadership system can guarantee that their ruler, be it a monarch or elected official or soviet/committee, does not become corrupted.
Any given polity needs mechanisms in place to deal with corruption. Any International Court therefore needs to have clear policies worked out so that corruption can be challenged and, ideally, remedied. But this too cannot be guaranteed - because nothing involving human beings ever can - but at least such mechanisms can ensure that the issue is publicly raised without fear of repercussion.
As far as I know, there is no such mechanism in place with the ICC, moreover most major nation states do not consent to be under its authority. That being the case, we should not have such a body. If the world is not sufficiently advanced to be led by a benevolent and wise World Emperor - which it isn't - then neither can it have a benevolent and wise World Court of Justice which is a more complex mechanism with more moving parts.
It's all fool's gold. And that goes for all World Authority bodies such as the UN, IMF, WHO etc. They are all vectors for manipulation and corruption. Better to be rid of them and have to work with direct negotiations between interested parties. Still imperfect, but far more honest.
The effectiveness of this 'sovereign' approach is already being demonstrated in spades by what Russia and China have been doing together, also with SCO and BRICS. They could not build any such cooperative alliances under the UN umbrella. At all.
I don't have time to find it now, but there were links provided to the bases for International Law that would likely have covered the points you rehearsed.
Interesting what War Correspondent Marat Khairullen wrote on this topic at his Telegram:
"America never ceases to amaze us. In a desire to show and once again prove their own superiority, the Americans decided that they themselves would determine the developed and underdeveloped countries. Do you know on what principle?
Who can the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecute and who cannot. Russia, according to the Americans, the ICC has the right to shake, but Israel in no case. Because, firstly, Israel did not arrange any genocide (Gaza, apparently, self-destructed). And secondly, it is a democratic state capable of independently investigating war crimes. Unlike Russia, for example.
Therefore, the ICC must withdraw the arrest warrant for Netanyahu. Otherwise, it will not be well. Representatives of the ICC and their children have already been banned from entering the United States.
"And what right, excuse me, does America have to evaluate the work of the International Criminal Court, if back in 2002 the United States withdrew its signature without ratification?
For reference: the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was signed in 1998 and ratified by 137 countries as of 2023.
Russia signed it in 2000.
The prehistory of the creation of the ICC is inextricably linked with its prototype - the International Tribunal for Yugoslavia. The consideration of these cases determined the need for the work of the war crimes and genocide tribunals on a permanent basis, which was done at a conference convened by the UN General Assembly.
"Recall that in August last year, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin, accusing him of a war crime - the illegal deportation of children from the territories of Ukraine to Russia. During the period of hostilities. We will not assess this now. Because it is clear how the facts were turned inside out.
Putin became the fourth leader against whom warrants were issued. Previously, warrants were issued against Omar al-Bashir (Sudan), Gaddafi (Libya), Gbagbo (Côte d'Ivoire - acquitted by the ICC).
"In this case, we are more interested in how the rhetoric of the collective West can change so much: before the request for a warrant for Israel, it was stated that the ICC, an authoritative international criminal prosecution body, employs the most qualified specialists in the field of international military law. But then there were claims against Israel - and that's it, the specialists immediately became unqualified. And in general, the ICC can only judge Africa and other "thugs", but not the West and its allies. What is this at all?!
Do you think we need the ICC or to disperse it, and it will become easier for everyone?)" https://t.me/s/voenkorkhayrullin/2390
the writer highlights very well the level of hypocrisy displayed by the usa with regard to israel specifically..
I'm traveling today to Hood River but hope to find time to post some selections from the weekly briefing that are important for readers to know.
safe travels! enjoy the hood river!
I thought that was a very interesting and informative speech. Thanks, Karl.
Does it surprise me to see all the duplicity, arrogance, and 24 carat hypocrisy from the west? Nope. It's kinda the expected norm nowadays. At this stage of my life (autumn) I look back and think things were better, then realize, no, they weren't: you just didn't know back then. And it's in that context I sometimes remind myself that I used to look to Washington as the voice of what was right and proper in the world: now, now I look to Moscow first, then Beijing a distant second. Quite the sea-change!
Personally I think the west is rotten to the core: debauched, corrupt beyond redemption, and totally lacking any scruple - there is no low to which they will not stoop.
Truly, I hope my children and grandchildren can live in a better, more equal and prosperous world, but since they all live in Europe I realize that is no longer possible. It saddens me to see what we have become.
Hard to argue with your sentiments. I fight the sadness by revealing the other side and marveling at what it's accomplishing.
What impresses me about the Director's speech is its utter candour and truthfulness. The pygmies that inhabit the halls of the Western political elites shrink in contrast to the principled advocates of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This is now so glaring so obvious yet most worrying reminded as I am of the confrontational idiocy exhibited by current UK Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron and late prime minister Boris Johnson both of whom share a common education and grooming at that educational icon of the UK ruling class Eton College. Imprisoned by their delusions their only hope is to slug it out in the style of not so sedate on the Global playing fields of Eton. God help us!!
Truthfulness and resulting credibility are Russia are the Global Majority's best tools in its confrontation with the West. And yes, I said as much many years ago. The key is to disseminate these writings to as many as possible. It's our way of nailing a thesis to the door of the Cathedral.
Given neither Russia, nor the US nor Israel have ratified the Rome Treaty, and have all declared that they no longer intend to ratify the treaty i.e. they are outside the jurisdiction of the ICC, it seems irrelevant whatever the ICC does or says.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_parties_to_the_Rome_Statute
Yes and no. It's a tool of control/hegemony, and that's the #1 issue. The question: What sort of International Law is humanity to have, and why shouldn't it apply to one and all?
Precisely !
Humans have spent 99% of their time on this pale blue dot in small hunter gatherer communities, forming the architecture of our present social psychology behaviour patterns.
Given we didn't go extinct, it seems fair to suppose that defining 'law' in such groups of c150 people (i.e. Dunbar number) would have been relatively easier than in larger groups of millions or indeed all 8+billion now alive.
The old techniques of taking any emergent psychopathic individuals, once their behaviour threatened the survival of the group, would have resulted in such an individual having an 'accident' on a hunting / gathering trip, was left to rot on the tundra, and everyone else would quietly approve.
Not sure how we can modernise such clearly highly effective techniques to ensure the long term survival of humans since our very recent evolution into much larger groups, entirely caused by high energy density fossil fuels that are running out?
This dilemma is one I've explored for decades--how do we get culture to regain control over human actions given our societal size? I've yet to discover a solution.
OT - ATACMS and S-400 radars hits etc
- Ukraine has attacked (disabled) a Russian ballistic missile early warning radar in Armavir, Russia
- has the potential to cripple Russia’s ability to respond to nuclear threats, and effectively triggers 19c of Russia’s nuclear response doctrine
- Ukraine is just beginning its escalations with ATACMs etc . So this is the main reason we are now at a potential crossroads
- If Ukraine gets the go ahead to use ATACMS and perhaps even the Storm Shadows, Taurus, etc., on Russian soil - then all hell could break loose as Russia has not demonstrated the capability to stop the ATACMS reliably - meanwhile the unprecedented Russian tactical nuclear missiles Mil exercises continue.
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/sitrep-52424-situation-turns-critical
Have yet to read Simplicius's latest. Russia will likely use its new long distance loitering drones to attack launchers once they're revealed, thus removing one part of the problem. Russia will also make its AD network denser. It would be nice to know the specifics of the Putin/Lukashenko chat as that might affect MoD planning and place the political goals over the military. We'll need to wait and see.
Fascinating. Thanks for coverage not obtainable anywhere, Karl!
a very timely article karl.. thanks so much for sharing it...
i wonder if it is possible to find and share the article he directs readers to as well -
"I would like to inform you that this year the issue of the legality of the ICC's activities was the subject of a study by the International Legal Council under the Russian Foreign Ministry. His Conclusion is published in International Affairs. I advise all of you to read this publication."
i can't find it! i don't know where to look!
Oops, I missed that. Here's the link, https://interaffairs.ru/news/show/36574 The stem goes to its home page, all of which is in Russian.
thanks karl... would you like me to share an english translation with you of this?? fire me an e mail or private message if that is possible here on substack if so..
Just arrived at The Dalles and our lodgings. What I'll do is put in in the queue and make it available to all readers. Probably be published Monday given what's in front of it now. Thanks for the offer. Too bad MoA's down, as it would fit there on Sunday's open thread.
There are two core principles involved with Law, namely jurisdiction and consent. The latter has to do with two or more parties agreeing to be bound by some sort of law established either by statute (written code) or particular agreement, often in the form of a contract.
Jurisdiction has to do with Authority, usually in the form of a Judge or Ruler operating in some sort of Court of Law (or Monarch) wherein all parties in any given controversy can assemble and submit to a Judgement rendered within that Court, usually via Monarch, Judge or Jury of Peers. For this authority to be respected, either brute force is used or all parties assembled consent to honour the ruling rendered in the Court.
In international Law, the parties involved are nation states with their own language, customs and laws, usually with their own Courts of Law. A truly para-national Court, though, must have its own jurisdictional powers and authority I think there are two core principles involved with Law, namely jurisdiction and consent. The latter has to do with two or more parties agreeing to be bound by some sort of law established either by statute (written code) or particular agreement, often in the form of a contract.
Then jurisdiction has to do with Authority, usually in the form of a Judge or Ruler. In this context there are Courts of Law (or of Monarchs) wherein all parties in any given controversy can assemble and then a decision rendered via a third party, usually a Judge, Monarch or Common Law 'Jury of Peers'. For this authority to be respected, either brute force is used or ideally all parties assembled consent to honour the ruling rendered in the Court.
In international Law, the parties involved are nation states with their own language, customs and laws, usually setting up their own Courts of Law to adjudicate controversies or punish crime. A truly para-national Court, though, must have its own jurisdictional authority and all parties involved must abide by the Court's rulings even when they are unfavourable to their nation and people.
Moreover, there must be safeguards against corruption. How on earth can this be done, especially in secular societies who recognize no transcendent authority or Law?
I don't believe it can. The simplest best way is probably the oldest: a single Emperor whose authority trumps all national jurisdictions who has final say over inter-national controversies. But how to ensure the Emperor is not corrupt? There can be no guarantee any more than any other national leadership system can guarantee that their ruler, be it a monarch or elected official or soviet/committee, does not become corrupted.
Any given polity needs mechanisms in place to deal with corruption. Any International Court therefore needs to have clear policies worked out so that corruption can be challenged and, ideally, remedied. But this too cannot be guaranteed - because nothing involving human beings ever can - but at least such mechanisms can ensure that the issue is publicly raised without fear of repercussion.
As far as I know, there is no such mechanism in place with the ICC, moreover most major nation states do not consent to be under its authority. That being the case, we should not have such a body. If the world is not sufficiently advanced to be led by a benevolent and wise World Emperor - which it isn't - then neither can it have a benevolent and wise World Court of Justice which is a more complex mechanism with more moving parts.
It's all fool's gold. And that goes for all World Authority bodies such as the UN, IMF, WHO etc. They are all vectors for manipulation and corruption. Better to be rid of them and have to work with direct negotiations between interested parties. Still imperfect, but far more honest.
The effectiveness of this 'sovereign' approach is already being demonstrated in spades by what Russia and China have been doing together, also with SCO and BRICS. They could not build any such cooperative alliances under the UN umbrella. At all.
I don't have time to find it now, but there were links provided to the bases for International Law that would likely have covered the points you rehearsed.