Georgia-Russia Conflict

History

The current armed conflict has its roots in a dispute between Georgia and Ossetia that goes back almost a hundered years ago.

The serious clashes began when the half-demented first president of post-Soviet Georgia, Zviad Gamsakhurdia, espoused an extreme chauvinist form of nationalism which declared all citizens who were not ethnic Georgians to be "guests" on the republic's territory. Gamsakhurdia abolished the autonomy and even the very name of South Ossetia.

The major conflict started in a series of uprisings in South Ossetia. The uprisings were against the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic. Newspapers of the time stated the Georgian government was conducting "national butchery of the Ossetians."Violent conflict broke out towards the end of 1991. Many South Ossetian villages were attacked and burned. As a result of the violence, approximately 1,000 people died and about 100,000 ethnic Ossetians fled the territory and moved mostly to North Ossetia, a republic within the Russian Federation.
After hundreds were killed, Georgia's Ossetians took what appeared the only option open to them: to separate. They rapidly found Russian protection in the guise of "peacekeepers".
In 1992 (ceasefire), Georgia was forced to accept a ceasefire to avoid a large scale confrontation with Russia.

In June 2004, tensions began to rise again as the Georgian authorities strengthened their efforts against smuggling, hostage takings etc, clearly breaking the terms of the 1992 ceasefire.
In 2008 tensions in the region continued and outbreaks of violence became increasingly frequent in the border area of Georgia and Russia.

Georgia maintained that it was an internal affair as the breakaway republic (Ossetia) had never been recognized internationally thus could be resolved without outside interference. However, early on August 8 Georgia launched a massive military offensive to take control of the republic.

Earlier, Russian ambassador Yuri Popov already warned that Russia would intervene if conflict erupted. Thus, after Georgian rockets were fired into South Ossetia and caused a humanitarian crisis which Russian government sources claimed amounted to genocide, Russia attacked Georgia.They claimed to have only responded in defense of South Ossetians against what they called "a genocide by Georgian forces.”

Opinion

The attack by Georgia against Ossetia is considered a qualified crime of genocide. Under the Roman Statute, genocide are acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part , a national, ethical, racial or religious group- a crime punishable before the International Criminal Court (ICC). In the statute, it provides that a state party or the UN Security Council may refer to the Prosecutor a situation of a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court and the ICC prosecutor may also initiate an investigation in respect to such crime.

Thus, in international law , there are certain procedures set forth in the manner of dealing and preventing crimes of concern to the international community. As members of the family of nations, a country should not take the law into its own hand.

Georgia in initiating the attack against Ossetia breached its 1992 ceasefire obligation which a manner inconsistent to the principle of the United Nation pacta sunt servanda (obligation should be performed in good faith).

Georgia’s claim that it is an internal affair in accordance with the UN principle of domestic jurisdiction should be coupled with peaceful means of settling the dispute and not resorting to armed attack. If this is Georgia’s means of settling their conflict to its de facto government Ossetia, then such if aggravates can be a breach of international peace and security which can allow the United Nation to intervene.

Russia on the other hand, acted too soon and left the whole world to speculate on what could truly be their intention. Is it really a defensive response in aid of Ossetia or any deeper motives ? – this is unclear.

Russia initially requested the UN Security Council a consultation on how to end the hostilities in Ossetia, but was unable to come up with a decision. Despite this, Russia pushed with what they claimed to be only an attack in defense of South Ossetians against "a genocide by Georgian forces.”

Art. 51 of the UN Charter recognizes the right to individual or collective self-defense until UN Security Council has taken necessary measures.But it limits the use of armed attack to justify the exercise of the rigt to self-defense. Forcible measures may be taken by a state only in the face of “a necessity of self-defense instant, overwhelming and leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation.”

Inconsistent to the purposes of UN, Russia’s act cannot be justified as an act of self-defense. Repelling a possible threat to their territory specifically their border area adjacent to Georgia are mere apprehensions. Art. 51 of the UN Charter further provides that mere apprehension does not warrant use of force.

If Russia’s intention is to respond and extend aid to Ossetians or protect their territory or peace, then it could have resorted to regional arrangements. Under the UN Charter every member shall make every effort to achieve pacific settlements of local disputes through such regional arrangements. It shall only be the UN Security Council who shall determine the existence of any threat or breach to peace, or acts of aggression and shall make recommendations and decide what measures to be taken in maintaining international peace and security.

Moreover, Russia’s counter attack to Georgia cannot be justified under the Roman Statute. ICC through the Roman Statute provides procedures on how to exercise criminal jurisdiction on a crime of genocide against those responsible internationally. It also emphasized that the Statute shall not be taken as authorizing any State Party to intervene in an armed conflict or in the internal affairs of any State-which Russia clearly violated.

Laslty, Russia’s intervention is not valid as intervention is only justified when it is an act of self-defense or when decreed by the Security Council as a preventive or enforcement action or when agreed upon in a treaty.

Clearly, Russia had their own thoughtless acts and so as Georgia. In the end, the greater destruction could have been avoided if these principles of the United Nation and International Laws in general are gravely followed – But sad to note, it seems they remained to be just principles which are yet to be implemented and effected.

GRP-MILF Bangsamoro Agreement

History/Overview

Bangsamoro people refers to those who are natives or original inhabitants of Mindanao and its adjacent islands including Palwanan and the Sulu at the time of conquest or colonization and their descendants whether mixed or of full native blood.

Historically, the Bangsamoro homeland consisted of the territory under the control or influence of the Moro Sultanates. Now, under the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) Peace Pact, the Bagsamoro ancestral domain would only include the present territorial territory of ARMM (Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao) as its core and additional barangays in Region IX, XII and Palawan.

The Bangsamoro struggle for self-determination is already a struggle of generations. Thus, in this most recent peace process, the Philippine government in its effort to cease hostilities entered into this agreement (GRP-MILF Agreement). It centered on issues of territory, resources and governance - compact rights entrenchment emanating from the regime of territory under compact and territory under peace agreement.

Through the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE), Bangsamoro acquires a legal personality although unclear whether or not is part and parcel of the Republic of the Philippines. Instead, it recognizes “the Central Government,” and establishes “associative relationship and associative arrangements” “sharing of resources,” with period of transition specifying the relationship. BJE is free to enter into any economic cooperation and trade relations with foreign countries without causing aggression against the GRP. The duty and obligation of the Central Government to take charge of external defense shall remain.

Additionally, over the years the MILF is only a rebellious group that our government has not even expressly recognized as a belligerent community under international law. But we are dealing with it as if it were a full-fledged state with the capacity, among other powers, to enter into treaties. Worse, it wants us to accept the Bangsamoro as a separate state with full and expressed preference “in their favor” in case of conflict with the Philippine Republic. For the purpose of this Agreement, a “treaty” is defined as any solemn agreement in writing that sets out understanding , obligations and benefits for both parties which provides for a framework that elaborates the principles declared in the agreement.

Opinion

Under the 1987 Constitution Article 1 (National Territory) it provides that –

The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of the........................"

The GRP-MILF Agreement would turn out to be a violation of our own Constitution as it gives recognition to the Bangsamoros as the exclusive owners of their claimed homeland –ancestral domains. Although the BJE embraces territorial jurisdiction over properties privately owned, their homeland ancestral domain exclusive claim limits and sets another demarcation on the entire Philippine territory, in turn Article 1 of the Constitution would no longer be applicable or needs to be modified.

Another concession in the agreement is its effect on the elements that made Philippines a state which vested our country’s international personality.
According to the Montevideo Convention a state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications :

1. a permanent population – consist of a group of people, both sexes living together as a community. They must be sufficient in number to maintain and perpetuate themselves.
2. a defined territory – a known fixed portion on the earth’s surface occupied by the inhabitants.
3. government - must be organized, exercising control over and capable of maintaining law and order within the territory. It can be held internationally responsible for the acts of the inhabitants.
4. capacity to enter into relations with the other states – has an external sovereignty capable of conducting both its internal and foreign affairs.

In the said agreement, the Philippine territory is no longer defined as it vests certain territorial rights to the Bangsamoros. The Central Governement is no longer exercising full control over the territory as it has restricted and limited exercise of power over those territories claimed by the Bangsamoros. Under these conditions, Philippines' legal personality internationally might be put at risk of being later doubted as to have lost some elements of a state. Certainly, we don’t like this to happen.

Unless, if the MILF is considered a belligerent community then such agreement would not endanger the country’s status internationally. But the MILF is only a rebellious group that our government has not even expressly recognized as a belligerent community under international law. Recognition of Belligerent Community under the international law is only extended when these conditions are established :

1. There must be an organized civil government directing the rebels.
2. The rebels must occupy a substantial portion to the territory of the state.
3. The conflict between the legitimate government must be serious, making outcome uncertain.
4. The rebels must be willing and able to observe the laws of war.

Clearly, the MILF or Bangsamoros do not occupy a substantial portion of the territory of the Philippines. The conflict has not reached a level of uncertain outcome as there have been various negotiations and peace talks in the past and just recently.

Moreover, both parties acknowledge that the right to self-governance of the Bangsamoro people is rooted on ancestral territoriality exercised originally under the suzerain authority of their sultanates. But are these aspects enough to vest the MILF or Bangsamoros an almost nation-state identity?

Good to note, the Supreme Court stopped the said deal thru a temporary restraining order (TRO) that discontinued the Aug. 5 signing. This is after a petition filed by the Zamboanga City Government seeking relief following the government’s intention to include their province in the expanded ARMM.

The proposal on including other areas in Mindanao as part of ARMM is another issue that needs to be dealt with accordingly. Proper communications to the concerned areas should be done.

More so, the Government has to think twice on this agreement, is this really the solution or just an easy way out?