Document confirms US told Russia NATO won’t expand

Whether all international agreements with the USSR transferred to the Russian Federation needs to be examined. Unfortunately, Google isn't what it once was. For sure, Russia automatically assumed the UN Security Council seat of the USSR so it would seem that the Federation's status, post-USSR dissolution, would be identical.
 
International Law in the Courts of the Russian Federation: Practice of Application

Abstract
This paper analyses the practice of the Courts of the Russian Federation in applying the rules of International Law in the period following acceptance of the Constitution of the Russian Federation (1993). The present constitution and the new federal legislation regulate the relevance of International and Russian Law much differently than they did before. Accordingly, judiciary practice is developing in a new way. Despite the massive body of laws and regulations, there are no precise reference points and answers in the legislation to practically important questions of correct application of the international treaties and generally recognized rules. This is one of the reasons why judiciary practice is developing inconsistently, and the application of International Law is often incorrect or even wrong. Not all of the international norms are applicable, and not all of the treaties have priority over laws. There are certain legal conditions for the application of international treaties, conditions for when they prevail over laws, and also there is a procedure of application which should be observed by Courts trying particular cases. Although one can speak of many contradictions, it is wise to take note of the tendency in judiciary practice to co-ordinated application of international and Russian law.

https://academic.oup.com/chinesejil...29/358517?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false
Click to expand...

I wish I had the time.

What papers such as this do reveal though is that the Russians do strive to honor international agreements in their own courts.
Where is the American equivalent ?
This whole threat of war is due to NATO advancement and Russian objection. If there IS a legal basis which binds both states then it ought to be aired- instead of all this pissing-contest that Biden is cheerleading.
 
moon said:
I wish I had the time.

What papers such as this do reveal though is that the Russians do strive to honor international agreements in their own courts.
Where is the American equivalent ?
This whole threat of war is due to NATO advancement and Russian objection. If there IS a legal basis which binds both states then it ought to be aired- instead of all this pissing-contest that Biden is cheerleading.
Click to expand...

Suck that Putin cock


You are blatant now
 
moon said:
I don't understand Russophobia. There's no country on earth that isn't guilty of some past crimes.
Click to expand...

For fucks sake


You sound like trump when he said “we have a lot of killers here too”


When he was defending putin
 
Phantasmal said:
The Soviet Union no longer exits.
Click to expand...

Good point (obviously overlooked). And, an agreement made in 1991 is not binding on current presidents.
I doubt if that agreement would have been made if Russia was going to expand into some of those regions.
 
volkscrock said:
Is it OK for people in the Ukraine to fire rockets into Russia?
Click to expand...


It's legal under international law for any country to resist invasion. No invasion = no resistance to invasion.

It's illegal under international law for any country to invade another and to transfer populations.
 
Flash said:
Good point (obviously overlooked). And, an agreement made in 1991 is not binding on current presidents.
Click to expand...

Where's your evidence for this ? Are you seriously suggesting that American international agreements are dependent upon the whim of different presidents ?
Are you endorsing international distrust, American exceptionalism and megalomania ?
 
moon said:
Where's your evidence for this ? Are you seriously suggesting that American international agreements are dependent upon the whim of different presidents ?
Are you endorsing international distrust, American exceptionalism and megalomania ?
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting. Executive agreements made by one president do not bind future presidents. Treaties are more legally binding after being ratified by the Senate and even treaties sometimes include terms to end that agreement.

In this case, nothing in the article mentioned an international agreement or even an executive agreement involving the president. It was just a four countries whose foreign representatives (an Assistant Secretary of State for the U. S.) made this agreement. It did not involve the president (although I'm sure it had his approval) or most members of NATO.

And, as Phantasmal pointed out, there is no more Soviet Union with which to keep an agreement. I don't think we would have pledged not to expand NATO if we thought Russia would expand into former Soviet territory.
 
Flash said:
I'm not suggesting. Executive agreements made by one president do not bind future presidents. Treaties are more legally binding after being ratified by the Senate and even treaties sometimes include terms to end that agreement.

In this case, nothing in the article mentioned an international agreement or even an executive agreement involving the president. It was just a four countries whose foreign representatives (an Assistant Secretary of State for the U. S.) made this agreement. It did not involve the president (although I'm sure it had his approval) or most members of NATO.
Click to expand...

Ah- infidels.

And, as Phantasmal pointed out, there is no more Soviet Union with which to keep an agreement.
Click to expand...

The Russians believe that the Federation inherited the legal stature of the Union- and I agree that it should. Still, if America's agreements aren't worth a toss then it hardly matters, does it. Sound the sirens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top