Battle of Bakhmut: Ukrainian soldiers worry Russians begin to ‘taste victory’

Kyiv Independent via Yahoo ^ | March 15th, 2023 | Asami Terajima

[caww]

Oh -—so you care -——LOLOLOL

[woodpusher]

You obviously do not know how international law works.

[Salohcin]

The fatal flaw in your argument is the assumption that the LPR and DPR are independent actors. They aren’t. They are fully under the control of Moscow so their actions are simply Russia’s actions by proxy.

[ought-six]

Hitting the bottle early, are you?

[ought-six]

“You obviously do not know how international law works.”

I actually do. Before I retired I was a litigation analyst in the insurance industry, and that included international cases.
Have you ever heard of the Hague Conventions? They are treaties, and they establish international protocol for litigation among signees.

The UN calling for parties to the Minsk Agreements abide by an agreement they entered into is not making law; it is merely a recommendation. The Minsk Agreements are a political accord and are not binding under international law.

[woodpusher]

Before I retired I was a litigation analyst in the insurance industry, and that included international cases.

Have you ever heard of the Hague Conventions? They are treaties, and they establish international protocol for litigation among signees.

The UN calling for parties to the Minsk Agreements abide by an agreement they entered into is not making law; it is merely a recommendation. The Minsk Agreements are a political accord and are not binding under international law.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

Treaties are a serious legal undertaking both in international and domestic law. Internationally, once in force, treaties are binding on the parties and become part of international law. Domestically, treaties to which the United States is a party are equivalent in status to Federal legislation, forming part of what the Constitution calls "the supreme Law of the Land."

Source: Treaties and Other International Agreements: The Role of the United States Senate: A Study (prepared for the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, S. Print 106-71, (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2001), p. 1.

[A strike]

I can’t help you if you won’t acknowledge what EVERYONE knows is true.

[Forward the Light Brigade]

Zelensky could end this with peace talks—the longer he waits—the worse it will be for Ukraine when the Americans pull out that is there habit. A bad habit started with South Viet Nam.

[ought-six]

“I can’t help you if you won’t acknowledge what EVERYONE knows is true.”

Then post the authoritative link.

[ought-six]

“Zelensky could end this with peace talks...”

Putin can end this today by withdrawing all Russian forces and assets back to Russia per its 2013 borders.

But, judging from your posting history, I doubt you’d want that.

Ukraine was invaded by a bigger and stronger neighbor without legitimate justification, and you want that neighbor — an historic bully — to make out like a bandit; because that would be the only result: Ukraine surrendering half its land mass and allowing Russia to dictate what Ukraine’s foreign and domestic policies would be. Basically, erasing Ukraine as an independent and sovereign nation. I think you’d like to see that.

[ought-six]

YOU have no clue what yu9u are talking about.

The Minsk Agreements are NOT treaties!

[ought-six]

YOU have no clue what you are talking about.

The Minsk Agreements are NOT treaties!

[woodpusher]

YOU have no clue what you are talking about.

The Minsk Agreements are NOT treaties!

You are an incompetent clown who has no idea what he is talking about. You just spew.

Source: Treaties and Other International Agreements: The Role of the United States Senate: A Study (prepared for the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, S. Print 106-71, (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2001), p. 1.

Under international law, a "treaty" is any legally binding agreement between nations.

VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES SIGNED AT VIENNA 23 May 1969

PART I

INTRODUCTION

Article 1

Scope of the present Convention

The present Convention applies to treaties between States.

Article 2

Use of terms

1. For the purposes of the present Convention: (a) 'treaty' means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation; (b) 'ratification', 'acceptance', 'approval' and 'accession' mean in each case the international act so named whereby a State establishes on the international plane its consent to be bound by a treaty; (c) 'full powers' means a document emanating from the competent authority of a State designating a person or persons to represent the State for negotiating, adopting or authenticating the text of a treaty, for expressing the consent of the State to be bound by a treaty, or for accomplishing any other act with respect to a treaty; (d) 'reservation' means a unilateral statement, however phrased or named, made by a State, when signing, ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty, whereby it purports to exclude or to modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that State; (e) 'negotiating State' means a State which took part in the drawing up and adoption of the text of the treaty; (f) 'contracting State' means a State which has consented to be bound by the treaty, whether or not the treaty has entered into force; (g) 'party' means a State which has consented to be bound by the treaty and for which the treaty is in force; (h) 'third State' means a State not a party to the treaty; (i) 'international organization' means an intergovernmental organization.

[ought-six]

“You are an incompetent clown who has no idea what he is talking about. You just spew.”

I remember you! You’re the stolen valor guy, claiming to be something you never were, ala Dick Blumenthal.

The Minsk Agreements set PROTOCOL, not LAW. They were NOT treaties.

You can try to claim they were treaties until the cows come home, but they were NOT treaties.

If they were treaties, then why did none of the signees who claimed to be aggrieved take the matter to a court of competent jurisdiction for adjudication? Because the Minsk Agreements were NOT law!

Do you and Dick Blumenthal get together for social gatherings?

[woodpusher]

Try again Pajama Guy

Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties

Article 2

Use of terms

1. For the purposes of the present Convention: (a) 'treaty' means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation; (b) 'ratification', 'acceptance', 'approval' and 'accession' mean in each case the international act so named whereby a State establishes on the international plane its consent to be bound by a treaty;

[ought-six]

You just sank your own argument.

Let’s just take the small portion of the Vienna Convention’s text that you cited: “For the purposes of the present Convention: (a) ‘treaty’ means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation; (b) ‘ratification’, ‘acceptance’, ‘approval’ and ‘accession’ mean in each case the international act so named whereby a State establishes on the international plane its consent to be bound by a treaty;”

First off, the Minsk Agreements were for the purpose of a cease fire, with an accompanying protocol. They were signed by representatives of the DPR and the LPR, as well as Germany, France, and Russia.

The DPR and LPR were not “States,” and thus right off the bat the Minsk Agreements were not treaties. Germany and France were not bound by the agreements because they were not participants in the conflict that would necessitate them doing anything; and Russia – clearly a participant in the conflict – took the position that it was not bound by the Agreements because it was not mentioned by name in the Agreements as a participant that would be affected by a cease fire, and thus not required to do anything.

Secondly, no government ratified the agreements making them treaties.

The Minsk Agreements (or Protocols) were simply blueprints: They were NOT treaties.

Here is an article explaining the nuances:

The Minsk Agreements are illegitimate and, moreover, imposed by force | by Slawa Gorobets | Medium

Also, for your records, here is the complete text of the Vienna Convention of 1986, which is the iteration that would have applied:

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations, 1986 (un.org)

[woodpusher]

Give it up pajama boy. You're busted. Run along now.

Source: Treaties and Other International Agreements: The Role of the United States Senate: A Study (prepared for the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, S. Print 106-71, (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2001), p. 1.

Under international law, a "treaty" is any legally binding agreement between nations.

VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES SIGNED AT VIENNA 23 May 1969

1. For the purposes of the present Convention: (a) 'treaty' means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation;

[woodpusher]

Also, for your records, here is the complete text of the Vienna Convention of 1986, which is the iteration that would have applied:

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations, 1986 (un.org)

No, moron. You should have read the damn thing. You only prove you did not even read the title page.

https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_2_1986.pdf

https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=XXIII-3&chapter=23&clang=_en

You did not read the part that says Not yet in force. Had you actually worked with this stuff as claimed, you would know that the correct citation goes to the Vienna Convention of 1969, the one that is in effect. Legal documents contine to cite the 1969 Convention. Gross public dumb appears to be your specialty.

As you have demonstrated your inability to read a legal document, maybe Wikipedia dumbs it down enough for you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_the_Law_of_Treaties_Between_States_and_International_Organizations_or_Between_International_Organizations

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Between States and International Organizations or Between International Organizations (VCLTIO) is an extension of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which deals with treaties between States. It was developed by the International Law Commission and opened for signature on 21 March 1986.

Article 85 of the Convention provides that it enters into force after ratification or accession by 35 states. As of October 2022, the treaty has been ratified or acceded to by 33 states. As a result, the Convention is not yet in force.[1]

Do you ever get anything right, or do you just like to spew mindless garbage?

[ought-six]

Give it up, son; and give your buddy Dick Blumental a call so you can console each other, stolen valor to stolen valor.

In any event, you habitually delete pertinent parts of documents that would kill your arguments. You are doing it again in this instance. Hell, you cite the Vienna Convention of 1969, which wasn’t even in effect in 2015 (the Vienna Convention on Treaties of 1986 was). Here, you only include part (a), but leave out the equally critical part (b): “’ratification’, ‘acceptance’, ‘approval’ and ‘accession’ mean in each case the international act
so named whereby a State establishes on the international plane its consent to be bound by a treaty...”

Neither the Ukrainian Rada nor the Russian Duma formally ratified or accepted the Minsk II Agreement; in fact, Russia said it was not a party to the conflict and therefore was not bound by its terms!

A treaty is a legally binding agreement between NATIONS (the DPR and the LPR were not then and are not now, NATIONS). Moreover, a PROTOCOL is not a TREATY. NO authoritative body or source has claimed the Minsk Agreements are TREATIES.

The European Institute for International Law and International Relations (www.eiir.eu) addresses the matter:

“It is clear that Minsk II was subject to several interpretations, and that made the agreement ineffective. Although Minsk II was not considered a treaty per se, the states could have applied the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to the articles in question to attempt to interpret the agreement according to the international law.”

The parties COULD HAVE applied the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties for interpretation, as a guideline, if they so desired (but they apparently had no such desire); but that does NOT make the instrument a TREATY. The parties could also have approached the International Court of Justice (the ICJ) for its opinion; but, again, none did; still, that would not have made the instrument a TREATY.

You are out of your league, son; which is common with stolen valor types. Give it up.

[A strike]

“It was Russia who broke the Minsk agreement ...”
Total bullScheiff, Angela Merkel confirmed Minsk was bogus.