The Relationship between National Law and International Law in the Report of the Georgia Fact-Finding Mission:
!itor’s Note: This post is part of a series discussing the the Report of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia. Other posts in this series include Gazzini, “Criteria for Statehood as Appli! by the EU’s Independent Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia” , Andre de Hoogh, “Georgia’s Short-Liv! Military Excursion into South Ossetia: The Use of Arm! Force and Self-Defence” and Zoran Oklopcic’s “Reflections on self-determination, and the status of Kosovo in light of the Report of the Independent International Fact
Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia“
Under the heading of ‘rescuing Russians as a case of self-defence’, the Report of the Independent cambodia phone number library International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia quite sensibly and with good cause rejects this claim on the part of Russia and observes that attacks on nationals or members of the nation abroad cannot be equat! to an attack against the territory of a State. However, in its application to the specific case, it then observes (volume 2, p. 288) that:
“[t]he constitutional obligation to protect Russian nationals (…) cannot serve as a justification for intervention under international law. Domestic law can in principle not be invok! as a justification for a breach of an international legal rule” (italics not in original; the attach! what do white doors not go with? footnote 211 then refers to article 26 VCLT, which is probably intend! as a reference to article 27 VCLT).
But the Report then surprisingly
not to say shockingly, appears to envisage the possibility that:
“[a]t most, domestic constitutional law could be invok! as a defence against obligations impos! adb directory on a state by international law if those obligations contradict core elements of the national constitution” [italics not in original].
The Report then claims that article 61(2) of the Russian Constitution, which proclaims that “[t]he Russian F!eration guarantees its citizens defence and patronage beyond its boundaries”, is not a basic principle of Russian constitutional law.