Eastern-Odyssey
Active Member
So what is the legal status of this document if, as you say, it is not legally binding?
(But there is no such thing as international law as there is no supra-national enforcement of any decision of any court, only the possibility of some states taking action against any state found to have violated anything. Anything deemed international law reduces, without loss of meaning, to law-between-states.)
I know you haven't said you believe this to be so, merely offering it as a possible Putin point, but I've seen no evidence of such a threat (it's also not "sectarian", that is of sects, religious, but what people call ethnic); is there any?
Well it's just a diplomatic agreement which all parties involved have agreed to Security Assurances, exactly what it says. Memorandums can be legally binding, but this one isn't, with language like "consult, refrain and respect" It barely passes as a diplomatic agreement. I'm assuming all parties involved wanted it to be as vague as possible, as neither party really had any intention of sticking to the agreement. However, not only does it bring NATO into none-binding defence pact, but in combination with other laws, that's what the US will use to sanction Russia, or push for a UN resolution. Obviously other laws like the CSCE treaty and the UN Charter the US breaks all the time and they have no chance at a security council resolution, so Russia's just going to tell them to fuck of and get on with it.
Yes I should have said ethnic-violence and I would class the 97 people that were just injured between pro and anti-maiden demonstrators, as a good example Putin could use for ethnic violence. They are technically ethnic-Russian's clashing with ethnic-Ukrainians something which is only going to get worse now Putin has announced his invasion of Crimea.