Merry Village писал(а): 20.) At least as far as the initial phase of the conflict is concerned, an additional legal
question is whether the Georgian use of force against Russian peacekeeping forces on
Georgian territory, i.e. in South Ossetia, might have been justified. Again the answer is in
the negative. There was no ongoing armed attack by Russia before the start of the
Georgian operation. Georgian claims of a large-scale presence of Russian armed forces in
South Ossetia prior to the Georgian offensive on 7/8 August could not be substantiated by
the Mission. It could also not be verified that Russia was on the verge of sucha major
attack, in spite of certain elements and equipment having been made readily available.
There is also no evidence to support any claims that Russian peacekeeping units in South
Ossetia were in flagrant breach of their obligations under relevant international agreements
suchas the Sochi Agreement and thus may have forfeited their international legal status.
Consequently, the use of force by Georgia against Russian peacekeeping forces in
Tskhinvali in the night of 7/8 August 2008 was contrary to international law.
21.) When considering the legality of Russian military force against Georgia, the
answer needs to be differentiated. The Russian reaction to the Georgian attack can be
divided into two phases: first, the immediate reaction in order to defend Russian
peacekeepers, and second, the invasion of Georgia by Russian armed forces reaching far
beyond the administrative boundary of South Ossetia. In the first instance, there seems to
be little doubt th at if the Russian peacekeepers were attacked, Russia h ad the right to
defend them using military means proportionate to the attack. Hence the Russian use of
force for defensive purposes during the first ph ase of the conflict would be legal.

Freeman писал(а):Volume III стр. 104

Merry Village писал(а): То есть получается, что комиссия пришла к выводу, что первыми огонь по грузинским войскам открыли миротворцы из Верхнего городка?
Выходит, в заключениях они пишут одно, а факты, которые они собрали, противоречат им.
Да и выводы, кстати говоря, согласен с Вашадзе, можно трактовать неоднозначно. Но эти выводы явно написаны так, чтобы не обидеть Кремль.

At least as far as the initial phase of the conflict is concerned, an additional legal
question is whether the Georgian use of force against Russian peacekeeping forces on
Georgian territory, i.e. in South Ossetia, might have been justified.

There is also no evidence to support any claims that Russian peacekeeping units in South
Ossetia were in flagrant breach of their obligations under relevant international agreements
suchas the Sochi Agreement and thus may have forfeited their international legal status.

Freeman писал(а):

is whether the Georgian use of force against Russian peacekeeping forces on
Georgian territory, i.e. in South Ossetia, might have been justified.

Это все же не утверждение о том что была применена сила против миротворцев, или ?
Меня слово "whether" смущает.

Freeman писал(а):Цитата:
At least as far as the initial phase of the conflict is concerned, an additional legal
question is whether the Georgian use of force against Russian peacekeeping forces on
Georgian territory, i.e. in South Ossetia, might have been justified.

Это все же не утверждение о том что была применена сила против миротворцев, или ?
Меня слово "whether" смущает.