Suchergebnisse

Argues that the international domain of human rights is rife with double standards & the issue is generally used for political rather than humanitarian purposes. The media, state governments, & non-governmental organizations are guilty of a politically biased approach to human rights. Emphasis is placed on the need to maintain a balance between respect for human rights & non-interference into the affairs of an individual state. Although the Vienna Declaration & Program of Action, adopted 25 June 1993 at the World on Human Rights, describes important aspects of the human rights principle, it "fails to specifically ban excessive politization of interstate cooperation in the human rights sphere." Attention is called to cases in which political bias is camouflaged as "genuine" concern for human rights & situations in which double standards incur interference into domestic competence. The 15 March 2006 United Nations resolution that established the Human Rights Council as a subsidiary body of the General Assembly is a move towards eliminating double standards & improving interstate cooperation in regard to human rights. J. Lindroth

Contends that the Soviet Union never legally occupied the Baltic countries of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. It is argued that Latvia and Estonia are now asserting that the USSR occupied them in order to justify discriminatory policies against Russians living in these nations. It is contended that territory can only be occupied as the result of war or military operations. Since the Soviet Union did not attack the Baltic states - and sent in its troops after receiving permission to do so from the Baltic governments - the USSR did not occupy these countries. The Baltic countries were not compelled to join the USSR by force, which would have rendered their annexation by the Soviets illegal under international law. The argument that the countries were occupied because their governments contradicted the will of their citizens by agreeing to join the USSR is dismissed as baseless under international law. Legal opinions by a French judge and an American lawyer are cited to support the author's contentions.

The article presents the matter of humanitarian intervention and protectionist policies in a roundtable format of Russia's academians through the Institute for Contemporary International Studies of the Diplomatic Academy and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The roundtable discusses armed intervention aimed at halting massive human rights violations, keeping connective lines with the United Nations Charter, raising a complex of issues for discussion. First topic scrutinized is NATO, followed by the doctrine of humanitarian intervention and practices and employment. The group discusses interventionist tactics utilized during the war with Georgia in 2008, correlating details with Kosovo. Also, discussed are humanitarian intervention polices as they regard to the position of self-defense and the norms of international and Russian law, involvement of the international community i.e. UN, CIS, NATO, etc., and the fight against terrorism; including thoughts on self-determination as accorded by UN and Helsinki documents. The conclusion more consideration is needed, as the world keeps changing and need for a transition to a new system of international law. Adapted from the source document.