Before you read this article, try hard to click on "Attention", which is both convenient for you to discuss and share, but can bring you a different sense of participation, thank you for your support!
Edited by: X
Ten years ago, a Boeing 777 passenger plane flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, together with the lives of 298 people on board, broke into pieces over eastern Ukraine.
This air crash named MH17 is no longer a simple tragic investigation, but has evolved into a long, complicated legal war full of political calculations.
on September 19. The Russian Federation formally appealed to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), pointing the finger at a ruling made by the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) on May 12th. That ruling, with the support of the vast majority of member states, found that Moscow was unshirkable responsible for the crash of Flight MH17.
This is not just a simple appeal, it is more like a carefully planned transfer of the battlefield. It clearly shows that the dispute around MH17 has long been at the heart of not truth and justice, but how the international court has become an agent battlefield for the game of great powers.
Choosing and arming the battlefield
Their goals were clear when the Netherlands and Australia launched the ICAO procedure against Russia in 2022.
The Dutch Foreign Minister once bluntly said, Hopefully, through this highly professional aviation agency, Russia will be forced to sit down on the negotiating table on the issue of compensation.Before the game, they had been playing for a long time.
As early as 2022, the Dutch district court in The Hague sentenced two Russian citizens and one Ukrainian citizen to life imprisonment in an absence trial. The European Court of Human Rights also ruled that Russia was responsible for the incident. This series of actions, like the combination of puffs, first consolidated the quality of individuals and nations in criminal and human rights fields.
They then directed the war to the ICAO headquarters in Montreal, which is the cornerstone of global civil aviation rules. Chicago ConventionThe Guardian of. Winning here means defining Russia's behavior as a destruction of the entire international civil aviation order.They have succeeded, The ICAO Council ruled that Moscow violated the convention.
But Moscow obviously does not intend to continue fighting on the battlefield chosen by its opponent.In the face of the ICAO defeat, Russia did not choose to defend within the framework, but directly kicked the ball to a higher and more complex stage. International Court of Justice.This trick directly challenges the jurisdiction and procedural fairness of the ICAO itself.
This is not so much a search for judicial justice as a strategic countermeasure. By dragging a relatively clear issue of aviation technical liability back into the quagmire of complex public international law, Russia has successfully won valuable time and space for itself.The litigation process can be years long and full of procedural and evidentiary tug and pull, which is a victory in itself.
Parallel Reality Under "Beech"
The core of this legal battle is no longer the fact itself, but the right to define "evidence". Both sides admitted that it was a "beech" surface-to-air missile that shot down MH17, but two completely opposite parallel worlds were constructed about where the missile came from and who launched it.
The Western-led international investigation, by analyzing the remains of the aircraft, tracking missile tracks and interpreting intercepted communications records, depicts a clear narrative chain: The missile system originated from the 53rd Russian Kursk Air Defense Brigade and was transported to the pro-Russian armed control zone of Uzbekistan and launched from there, eventually hitting the passenger aircraft.This claim is almost definitive in Western societies.
However, in Moscow’s eyes, the “proof chain” is “untransparent” from beginning to end. Russia fiercely criticized that the investigation was led by the Netherlands and Ukraine, which have stakeholders, and its results were bound to be suspicious.They insist that the key evidence they submitted, such as radar images and military surveillance intelligence, was "deliberately ignored" by the investigators.
In the Russian narrative, this is not an omission, but a complete political manipulation. Investigators accepted “fake facts.”You see, when technical investigation is deeply politized, even the most objective material evidence cannot bridge the huge gap based on different geopolitical positions.
Symbolic significance and reality of the judgment
Despite the fact that several courts have ruled against Russia, these rulings appear pale in the real world. The Dutch court’s life imprisonment sentence has become an empty paper for Russia’s refusal to extradite suspects. This reveals a cruel reality: What happens when a legal ruling hits the veto of a permanent member of the Security Council?
The answer is, Almost nothing happens.Even if the ICJ makes a final judgment against Russia in the future, its enforcement will be almost impossible. Any resolution that tries to impose sanctions through the UN Security Council will be vetoed by Russia with one vote. This exposes the structural inability of international law to deal with the responsibility of major powers.
Its value has shifted from striking justice, to the symbolic struggle shaped by moral condemnation and public opinion. For the Netherlands, this is a trauma to the nation.For Russia, it is a "labeled accusation" that must be torn, recognizing responsibility is nothing else than weakening the nation.
The real influence of this unenforceable tug-of-war may lie in the deep thinking it triggers. For example, how to define flight safety and national responsibility over war zones? Is a country responsible for weapons flowing from its territory? The significance of the discussion of these issues has gone far beyond the MH17 case itself.
conclusion
In this long-lasting legal and political battle, the original 298 dead lives, along with the endless suffering of their families, are gradually being pushed from the core of the case to the edge.
The families of the victims have made humble and painful appeals, It is hoped that "Russia's recognition of responsibility" will be included in any possible future Russia-Ukraine peace agreement.
This appeal itself is heartbreaking.It is precisely indicating that their pursuit of justice has been involving in the flood of the game of the great powers, becoming the code on the chessboard, an increasingly distant "rebound" in the long wait.
The legal battle of MH17, which was ultimately sacrificed, may be the humanitarianism itself that it originally wanted to protect.