“For” – Russia, China and Brazil. 12 countries abstained. Consequently, the resolution was not adopted.
There is therefore a lack of interest in conducting an objective international investigation. As the well-known saying goes, “the main thing in investigative actions is not to end up”. Apparently, this is the reasoning of the countries that did not vote today for the adoption of a resolution of the UN Security Council.
Why should there be an international investigation rather than a national investigation?
Political aspect: The Nord Streams are international pipelines. Their routes cross the maritime spaces of 5 states – Russia, Germany, Denmark, Finland and Sweden.
Economic aspect: Critical infrastructures, in which dozens of foreign investors from different countries have invested considerable funds, have been damaged. The question is about compensation for damages.
Environmental aspect: The resulting explosions and gas leaks have seriously damaged the ecosystem of the Baltic Sea. This means that an international environmental study must be carried out and measures taken to eliminate the damage.
Humanitarian aspect: as a result of the explosion, the uninterrupted supply of gas to European consumers was interrupted, which caused the greatest energy crisis.
Legal aspect: there is no particular international convention concerning the protection of submarine pipelines. It is a question of law. But now there is uncertainty about the assessment of the facts: what happened, who is involved, what action needs to be taken?
In this case, international law prescribes the creation of international commissions of inquiry. Adopted on the initiative of Russia in 1907, the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes establishes that, in international disputes arising from differences in the appreciation of the circumstances of fact, the Contracting Powers establish an International Commission of Inquiry, who shall have the duty to facilitate the settlement of such disputes by clarifying the questions of fact by an impartial and conscientious investigation thereof (Section III). The document set out a detailed procedure for the establishment and operation of such a commission.
The UN is obliged (I insist, obliged!) to create commissions to investigate the facts. This duty derives from the 1991 United Nations Fact-Finding Statement on the Maintenance of International Peace and Security:
“The Security Council should consider undertaking fact-finding activities to effectively discharge its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in accordance with the Charter” (para. 8);
“The Security Council should at all times consider including in its resolutions a provision for the use of a fact-finding mechanism” (paragraph 9).
It is clear that explosions at such important international energy facilities constitute a threat to international peace and security, on which the UN Security Council is empowered to rule in accordance with the UN Charter.
Unfortunately, today, mainly because of the fault of Western states, the UN Security Council has not done its duty.
Source: telegram channel Deputy Chairman of the Federation Council Konstantin Kosachev.
