Print Magazine
Brussels Morning Newspaper
Thursday, August 18, 2022
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
    • About Us
  • EU institutions
    • Commission
    • Parliament
    • Council
  • Europe
  • World
  • Economy
  • Culture and Society
  • In Depth
    • Ambassador’s Corner
    • The American Angle
    • Europe With Transparency
    • Sustainable Perspective
    • Place de la Bourse
    • The Macro-Economist
    • Southeast Europe
Brussels Morning Newspaper
  • Home
    • About Us
  • EU institutions
    • Commission
    • Parliament
    • Council
  • Europe
  • World
  • Economy
  • Culture and Society
  • In Depth
    • Ambassador’s Corner
    • The American Angle
    • Europe With Transparency
    • Sustainable Perspective
    • Place de la Bourse
    • The Macro-Economist
    • Southeast Europe
Brussels Morning Newspaper
No Result
View All Result
Home Europe

Georgia vs. Russia: Georgia’s bittersweet victory at the European Court of Human Rights

Tetyana Demyanchuk by Tetyana Demyanchuk
2 April 2021
in Europe
Georgia vs. Russia: Georgia’s bittersweet victory at the European Court of Human Rights
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

A 2021 European Court of Human Rights ruling found Russia responsible for violations in the five-day war with Georgia in 2008. The result of this twelve-years long legal battle may set a precedent for other cases, including those concerning Nagorno Karabakh and Eastern Ukraine.

Prague (Brussels Morning) On 21 January, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered an important judgement on the inter-state case GEORGIA v. RUSSIA (II). The Court ruled in favour of Georgia and found Russia responsible for violating various articles of the European Convention of Human Rights in the immediate aftermath of the conflict. The violations included detaining and torturing individuals and preventing Georgian nationals from returning to their homes in South Ossetia and Abkhazia after the war. The Court further found that Russia has not carried out an effective investigation into the violations that took place.

The August 2008 war ended in less than a week, with Russian soldiers remaining in the Georgian breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Moscow would later pronounce those regions independent states. In response, Georgia filed a number of lawsuits, trying to hold the Kremlin accountable for violations of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Even though this judgement is undoubtedly a victory for Georgia, this 11-to-6 ‘Solomon Ruling’ leaves a bittersweet taste as it does not recognise alleged human rights violations during the “active phase of hostilities,” as the territories in question were not under Russian jurisdiction. 

This was not just a loss for Georgia. The ruling sets a precedent relevant to pending ECHR cases, such as those concerning the conflict in and around the region of Nagorno Karabakh and the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. To understand why, one needs to delve deeper into the ECHR’s decision.

Effective control

Crucial to understanding the ruling is the Court’s distinction between the period of “active phase of hostilities” (8-12 August 2008) and the subsequent ceasefire period.

After the examination of the case, the Court ruled that Russia did not exercise “effective control” over South Ossetia, Abkhazia and the buffer zone during the “active phase of hostilities”. Hence, Russia had no jurisdiction and is not responsible for many human rights violations, with the exception of the procedural obligation to carry out an adequate investigation into all deaths of arbitrarily detained civilians.

The Court argued that a war zone creates a situation of chaos and it is not possible to talk about “effective control” under those circumstances. The ECHR refers to this principle as a “context of chaos” that emerges during armed confrontation. That is not the case during the ceasefire agreement from 12 August 2008 and until the official withdrawal of Russian troops on 10 October when the Court finds that Russian troops had “effective control” and jurisdiction over the territory. Even after the withdrawal of forces, the continued reliance of these territories on Russia are seen by the Court as “effective control” over these regions. 

Negative impact

This judgement is likely to cast its shadow over other ECHR rulings on conflict situations where a “context of chaos” prevails and jurisdiction is contested, i.e., those on Ukraine and Nagorno-Karabakh. 

This is a problem as conflicts frequently cannot be clearly divided into neat “phases”. And although it is in conflict control over territory is fluid rather than absolute, especially in the short-term, the concept of “phases” does not capture this complexity. In the example of GEORGIA v. RUSSIA (II), it has been argued that Russia did not have control over some areas on 11 August, but somehow was in total control on 12 August. 

Furthermore, the cessation of hostilities does not necessarily mean that the conflict between the two states has ended. In the case GEORGIA v. RUSSIA (II), ‘phases’ were relatively easy to establish, but conflicts do not necessarily stop with the ceasefire agreement and some even continue without formal acknowledgement. This continuance makes the Court’s temporal distinction seem even more arbitrary and very hard to apply.

For example, the case of Eastern Ukraine will be more complicated in many respects, since the 2014 eruption of conflict in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, control over territories such as the town of Debatlseve went back and forth. A number of ceasefires ensued, followed by periods of hostilities.

The ruling also indicates that the Court’s international rulings are cautious in fear of political backlash that may endanger the Convention. This could set the tone for the credibility of future rulings.

In sum, while the ruling effectively mounts greater pressure on Russia to cease violating Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and take responsibility for its actions, it leaves us guessing how it will affect future rulings. The outcome of pending cases is now less predictable.

Tags: Eastern PartnershipEastern Partnership Security ReviewMain-Slider

Latest post

Afghanistan: One year of agony

Afghanistan: One year of agony

2 days ago
EU burned areas reach new high due to wildfires

EU burned areas reach new high due to wildfires

2 days ago

Most Read

  • Losing Balance on Bosnia and Herzegovina

    Losing Balance on Bosnia and Herzegovina

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • What Are The Highest Paying Jobs In Finland?

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • Here Are 10 Highest Paying Jobs In Norway 

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • What Are The Highest Paying Jobs In Luxembourg?

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • These are the 10 highest paying jobs in the Europe in 2022

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
Facebook Twitter Youtube LinkedIn

About Us

Brussels Morning is a daily online newspaper based in Belgium. BM publishes unique and independent coverage on international and European affairs. With a Europe-wide perspective, BM covers policies and politics of the EU, significant Member State developments, and looks at the international agenda with a European perspective.

Category

  • Ambassador’s Corner
  • Belgium News
  • Brussels
  • Commission
  • Council
  • Culture and Society
  • Diplomacy
  • Economy
  • EU Institutions
  • Europe
  • Europe With Transparency
  • Features
  • In Depth
  • Member States
  • Middle East Eye
  • Opinion
  • Our pick
  • Parliament
  • Place de la Bourse
  • Southeast Europe
  • Sustainable Perspective
  • The American Angle
  • The Macro-Economist
  • Uncategorised
  • US Elections
  • World

More info

  • About Us
  • Advertising
  • Cookies Policy
  • Contact Us
  • FAQ
  • Jobs

Brussels Morning Newspaper - All Rights Reserved © 2020

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About Us
  • EU Institutions
    • Parliament
    • Commission
    • Council
  • Europe
  • World
  • Member States
  • Economy
  • Culture and Society
  • In Depth
    • Ambassador’s Corner
    • Europe With Transparency
    • Place de la Bourse
    • The Macro-Economist
    • Sustainable Perspective
    • The American Angle
    • Southeast Europe
  • Print Magazine

Brussels Morning Newspaper - All Rights Reserved © 2020

We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT