The Russian invasion of Ukraine and the barbarism of Russian troops in committing war crimes and crimes against humanity on a massive scale does indeed constitute an all-out assault on our civilization.
Ukraine's genocide case is now before the International Court of Justice, which as you know has in an interim order mandated that Russia cease its military operations in Ukraine.
The battle between civilization and barbarism was vividly symbolized by the movement of German tanks onto the grounds of the World Court in May, 1940. Ultimately, the tanks were forced to withdraw and the Court and international law, embodied in the Judgment at Nuremberg and the United Nations Charter, prevailed.
All nations must now act to ensure that the U.N. Charter and international law prevail once more, in the perennial struggle for justice and the rights of man, for the rule of law both within and among nations, and for the triumph of civilization over barbarism.
Author's note:
Eduardo Rodríguez Veltzé, whose comment appears below, is a former president of the Supreme Court of Bolivia, a former president of Bolivia (in 2005-2006, during a transitional period), a former Ambassador of Bolivia to the Netherlands, and a former Agent of Bolivia before the International Court of Justice in litigation between Bolivia and Chile.
Thanks for your inspiring article on the war in Ukraine. Adding to your personal motivation, as a former student at your Human Rights class at Harvard back some time ago and later involved in international law litigation I should agree that Russia's "special military operation" is certainly an assault on civilization. It is an abusive provocation to nations that outgrew the use of war to settle their differences.
So. We a moral obligation underneath existence, an obligation to all people to love and respect them, to help them love respect themselves and we do this by establishing laws on all levels, local, national and international.
If this moral responsibility is not felt or acknowledged by one or many then the cbligation of the rest of us is to, lead by example, and or hold everyone accountable in one way or another.
These questions of individual responsibility are dealt with authoritatively by the German philosopher Karl Jaspers in "The Question of German Guilt" (Eng. trans. 1947), which he published in German in 1946 when Germans were grappling with this issue. I need to review what he said exactly.
Personally I do believe that we owe a moral obligation to love and help other people. This is is a spiritual or religious belief. Law is only an instrument, and one of the ways this sentiment may be expressed if done through truly democratic means. But there are many other ways.
As for those who don't share this belief, if they have committed crimes like Hitler and Putin they ought to be held accountable and punished whenever possible. The same goes for soldiers who commit war crimes.
But the individual moral responsibility about which Jaspers writes, and to which I refer, is an existential responsibility which each individual must face alone. It is not essentially about judging others for not feeling it.
Certainly, it seems to me, our obligation is to lead by example. Certainly, we can urge others to shoulder their responsibility. And criminals should be punished. Beyond that, there is plenty to think about.
Jim, thank you for your, er trenchant explanation of your keen interest in the Ukraine drama playing out on the international stage, and for reminding us of the importance of the UN Charter and other guideposts of international law whose principles are at stake. Alas we live in a time when the principles governing our own domestic legal institutions are also at stake, as so vividly demonstrated by the Supreme Court's recent rulings.
The principles governing our own domestic legal institutions are indeed at stake, as you rightly point out. A Supreme Court seemingly freed from the traditional constraints of constitutional adjudication would appear to heighten threats to the rule of law.
Indeed, the struggle to uphold the rule of law in the United States is intricately related to the battle to defend Ukraine, the U.N. Charter, and our civilization.
For if a friend of Putin and insurrectionist like Donald Trump or one of his acolytes were to be elected in 2024, it could mean the end of U.S. leadership of the coalition opposing Putin, a collapse or great weakening of military and other support for Ukraine, and a lifting or great relaxation of sanctions against Russia.
Thanks, Eduardo, for your comment.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine and the barbarism of Russian troops in committing war crimes and crimes against humanity on a massive scale does indeed constitute an all-out assault on our civilization.
Ukraine's genocide case is now before the International Court of Justice, which as you know has in an interim order mandated that Russia cease its military operations in Ukraine.
The battle between civilization and barbarism was vividly symbolized by the movement of German tanks onto the grounds of the World Court in May, 1940. Ultimately, the tanks were forced to withdraw and the Court and international law, embodied in the Judgment at Nuremberg and the United Nations Charter, prevailed.
All nations must now act to ensure that the U.N. Charter and international law prevail once more, in the perennial struggle for justice and the rights of man, for the rule of law both within and among nations, and for the triumph of civilization over barbarism.
Author's note:
Eduardo Rodríguez Veltzé, whose comment appears below, is a former president of the Supreme Court of Bolivia, a former president of Bolivia (in 2005-2006, during a transitional period), a former Ambassador of Bolivia to the Netherlands, and a former Agent of Bolivia before the International Court of Justice in litigation between Bolivia and Chile.
Thanks for your inspiring article on the war in Ukraine. Adding to your personal motivation, as a former student at your Human Rights class at Harvard back some time ago and later involved in international law litigation I should agree that Russia's "special military operation" is certainly an assault on civilization. It is an abusive provocation to nations that outgrew the use of war to settle their differences.
So. We a moral obligation underneath existence, an obligation to all people to love and respect them, to help them love respect themselves and we do this by establishing laws on all levels, local, national and international.
If this moral responsibility is not felt or acknowledged by one or many then the cbligation of the rest of us is to, lead by example, and or hold everyone accountable in one way or another.
Is that your point?
These questions of individual responsibility are dealt with authoritatively by the German philosopher Karl Jaspers in "The Question of German Guilt" (Eng. trans. 1947), which he published in German in 1946 when Germans were grappling with this issue. I need to review what he said exactly.
Personally I do believe that we owe a moral obligation to love and help other people. This is is a spiritual or religious belief. Law is only an instrument, and one of the ways this sentiment may be expressed if done through truly democratic means. But there are many other ways.
As for those who don't share this belief, if they have committed crimes like Hitler and Putin they ought to be held accountable and punished whenever possible. The same goes for soldiers who commit war crimes.
But the individual moral responsibility about which Jaspers writes, and to which I refer, is an existential responsibility which each individual must face alone. It is not essentially about judging others for not feeling it.
Certainly, it seems to me, our obligation is to lead by example. Certainly, we can urge others to shoulder their responsibility. And criminals should be punished. Beyond that, there is plenty to think about.
Jim, thank you for your, er trenchant explanation of your keen interest in the Ukraine drama playing out on the international stage, and for reminding us of the importance of the UN Charter and other guideposts of international law whose principles are at stake. Alas we live in a time when the principles governing our own domestic legal institutions are also at stake, as so vividly demonstrated by the Supreme Court's recent rulings.
Steve,
Thanks for your comment.
The principles governing our own domestic legal institutions are indeed at stake, as you rightly point out. A Supreme Court seemingly freed from the traditional constraints of constitutional adjudication would appear to heighten threats to the rule of law.
Indeed, the struggle to uphold the rule of law in the United States is intricately related to the battle to defend Ukraine, the U.N. Charter, and our civilization.
For if a friend of Putin and insurrectionist like Donald Trump or one of his acolytes were to be elected in 2024, it could mean the end of U.S. leadership of the coalition opposing Putin, a collapse or great weakening of military and other support for Ukraine, and a lifting or great relaxation of sanctions against Russia.