Monday, September 8, 2014

"The Novorussiyan ceasefire agreement + open thread" [ 'Protocol', My ass, as Solon would have said in Greek.]

Post a Comment On: The Vineyard of the Saker



Larchmonter445 said...
I'm not too interested in the content of the Ceasefire Protocol signed in Minsk.

I'm plumbing the legal structure of such a Protocol instrument.

Under UN Legal Definition a protocol is similar to a treaty. It can carry the weight of treaty. It is from the work of treaty writing and signing and enforcing.

It usually follows, adds or refines an existing treaty.

But in this case it precedes a treaty.
Now, Treaties are very important documents. They are discussed and approved by each nation signing them. They are made between or among nations, not lesser entities.

So, let's look at the signers to this document that purports it is a document of truce, a protocol between two equal parties.

Russia would not use an ambassador to sign a treaty or protocol to a treaty. A foreign minister or the head of state would be the signer.

Ukraine is not representative by anyone with power from its Duma or President or Prime Minister.

And the OSCE is a capon, party to nothing.

The two militia/Novorossiya signers have no title, and don't indicate they sign for any entity.

You or I could have signed it just as well as these two.

So, you have a Protocol that purports some International legal binding intentions. However, it does not rise to the legal level needed to be recognized as Treaty or Protocol to a Treaty.

In fact, officially, Russian refuses to recognize the junta as legitimate. They deal with the junta, but they have not truly recognized them and constantly complain the junta is illegitimate.
So, this is like signing a MOU. That memorandum of understanding has no legal binding to it.

It is not an agreement which is another name in law for contract.

MOU is worth the paper it is written on.
This is of the same worth.

If the Protocols are written on soft paper, they can send it to the troops for toilet paper.


A protocol has similar legal characteristics as a treaty. However, protocol is an agreement of a less formal nature than a treaty or convention. Generally, a protocol amends, supplements or clarifies a multilateral treaty. A protocol may be on any topic relevant to the original treaty and is used either to further address something in the original or parent treaty, or to address a new concern. A protocol is also used to add a procedure for the operation and enforcement of the treaty. A protocol is ‘optional’ because it is not automatically binding on States that have already ratified the original treaty and in order to be binding, the states must independently ratify a protocol.
In the legal sense, it is defined as an international agreement that supplements or amends a treaty.

Protocol Legal Definition:
International agreements of a less formal nature than a treaty and which amends, supplements or clarifies a treaty.

Treaty Legal Definition:
A formal agreement between two states signed by official representatives of each state.

I'm not an international lawyer, not a lawyer of any kind. But I know what words mean and how documents need to be scrutinized.

The entire dance in Minsk was for other reasons and the Protocols is but a souvenir of the event.

Don't sweat it. The war will carry on.

Protocol, my ass, as Solon would have said in Greek.

No comments:

Post a Comment