Sounds like Amnesty International’s tactics of ZSU literally spread the information space. Having reached the end of the first emotions, I want to analyze this legal problem.

On the one hand, Amnesty International – an authoritative international organization, like, zokrema, chose to prove how the evil forces of the Russian Federation against the civilian population in the drama theater of Mariupol, and, on the other hand, actually demonstrated with a new light that theorizing can often differ from reality. I will appoint a dekilka outside for understanding the situation of moments.

Existing analytics can’t help but cheat the context. And the fault lies in the fact that all international evils on the territory of Ukraine have become possible due to the aggression of the Russian Federation. Obviously, Ukraine, as a party to the conflict, has the right to defend itself. Until then, not me, like a victim of aggression, robbed the theater of combat actions. Attacks on Ukrainian places are a symbol of the armed forces of the Russian Federation. Ale viyna – bring death, suffering and destruction. There is not much black and white in it.

And one more thing – Amnesty International, in its name, is standing up to the provisions of the Addendum Protocol I, for which Russia entered the rotation in 2019, equally, even as it prepares for full-scale aggression.

The sound is composed of several paragraphs, three of which lead to the firmness that the Ukrainian AP will win over the civilized population like a living shield, to destroy Art. 28 Geneva Convention IV and 51 (7) Additional Protocol I.

The remaining paragraph of assignments to non-violent attacks of the RF AP on the civilian population and objects on the territory of Ukraine. Prote not zgaduєtsya principle of proportionality vikoristannya forces navit on military objects, so you can threaten death or wounded civilians.

Henceforth, the authors declare, that the ZSU will deploy their troops in schools, hospitals, and even fire from densely populated areas, posing a threat to the civilian population.

It is instructed at the very star that zbroynі forces mayut the right to win civil objects, as if the stench of roztashovani on sufficient vіdstanі vіd zhitlovoї zabudovi.

To that, in fact, there is a need for the sounding of the armed forces of Ukraine from those who did not have the “maximum possible” entries for the evacuation of the population from such areas.

How can you look like this come in? Why do you need to be aware of the official issues about the call to evacuation by “maximum possible approaches”? Why work with the population, if you don’t want to, or you can’t evacuate? How was the operational-tactful situation assessed at the beginning of the analysis of military servicemen? How little stench can I spread myself in another place, with whom I have secured the zakhist for myself and those hromadas?

On all points there is no evidence in the answer, and the evidence itself was given a substantiation for a legal assessment.

Commentary to the Additional Protocol I to say that the article Art. 58 about the outside, come in after the attack (evacuation of the population) without looking at the unforeseen.

Further, mind you, why do not violate the Russian principle of proportionality, fixing Article 51 (5) (b) in the Addendum Protocol I, inciting fire in the areas of deployment of ZSU in places?

Obviously, what to destroy. So, one of the svіdkіv designate about two military vantazhіvki, yakі stood near її house, after which a rocket flew there. Two military vantazhivki that missile strike is not predictable to the principle of military necessity, if military advance can make such a strike true. You can bring more flashy facts, for example, if 24 civilians perished at the time of the shelling of the house of officers near Vinnitsa. Viysk’s meta to strike on a broad day on a deep teal place, on an object, dezashovani likarnya and a shopping center, nezrozumila.

In such a way, to remind Amnesty International to say the Ukrainian side on our pardons for their desperation in the future, the reaction was predicted to be similar to us in front of us through the form of reporting information. In my opinion, the fact of the immovable violation of the norms of international humanitarian and criminal law, by the Ukrainians, can be examined and investigated in detail. But it’s definitely firm that the ZSU victoriously live as a tactic – unprimed, in the hour of service, I’ll throw it into the information war. It is also possible in the minds of large-scale aggression, if all the power of the military machine of the Russian Federation is directed against Ukraine, independent international organizations should be allowed to do more for analytical purposes? Natomista calls not to take revenge on hard evidence, allowing us to be able to look at the skin of the episode in essence.

The German sociologist Max Weber analyzes two aspects of ethics: the ethics of change and the ethics of change. In essence, I describe our current problem posing: can we think more about it here and now, about more formal procedures or about the legacy of our own business? It is obvious that Amnesty International wanted to demonstrate their lack of enthusiasm and went through formal procedures. Ale chi vartuє tse potenciykh naslіdkіv: defamation of ZSU, rebuffing by Russian propaganda and, zreshtoyu, unacceptable by Ukrainians of possible stars of international organizations, how can they revenge more balanced thought and constructive criticism?

Tsya war to put new vikliki in front of the entire corpus of international humanitarian law. Yake, madly, may be aimed at us in front of the non-return punishment of the aggressor. І zmistovnі debate can go on its own about tse – how to bring the guilt of the aggressor and avoid the repetition of the war. I would like to have the international organizations initiate the same discussions for the further directions of the wild lands. For God’s sake, we do not know the way to punish aggressors, bloodshed in the world of trivatime.