By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The ICAO Council determined that Russia violated the Convention on International Civil Aviation by its role in the downing of flight MH17 in July 2014, upholding a claim brought by the Netherlands and Australia. This decision, reached by a significant majority vote, concludes Russia’s responsibility for the tragedy. The next stage involves initiating negotiations between Russia, the Netherlands, and Australia to determine appropriate reparations. Despite Russia’s prior withdrawal from the ICAO dispute, the organization will facilitate these negotiations to ensure a meaningful outcome.
Read the original article here
The UN’s International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) finally recognizing Russia’s responsibility for shooting down flight MH17 is a significant development, albeit a long overdue one. Eleven years after the tragedy, this ruling confirms what many have known for years: Russia bears the ultimate responsibility for the deaths of the 298 passengers and crew aboard the Malaysia Airlines flight. This delay, however, raises questions about the UN’s effectiveness and the international community’s response to blatant acts of aggression.
The sheer length of time it took to reach this conclusion is baffling. It shouldn’t have taken over a decade for the international community, through the ICAO, to officially acknowledge the overwhelming evidence pointing to Russia’s culpability. The fact that it took this long raises serious questions about the UN’s capacity to act swiftly and decisively in the face of such clear evidence of a grave international crime. This delayed response casts a shadow on the organization’s efficiency and its commitment to justice.
This decision, while significant, is more than just a symbolic victory. The ICAO ruling allows Australia and the Netherlands, who brought the case against Russia, to pursue reparations for the victims and their families. While securing actual financial compensation from Russia may prove challenging, the official acknowledgement of culpability is a step towards accountability and a powerful testament to the persistence of the victims’ families and the countries involved in their pursuit of justice. Having Russia’s responsibility legally established and documented is essential, regardless of the financial repercussions.
The ICAO ruling should serve as a stark reminder of the need for a stronger international mechanism to address such acts of aggression. The world needs a more robust system to prevent and punish violations of international law, particularly those resulting in massive loss of innocent life. The slow and often ineffective processes of international organizations must be reviewed, and improvements implemented to ensure that similar tragedies are not repeated with the same sluggish reaction from the global community.
Despite the late recognition, there is a sense of cautious optimism that this ruling represents a step toward justice. It puts the responsibility squarely where it belongs – on Russia. This provides legal grounds for further action, although the chances of Russia readily paying reparations are slim. However, the symbolic value of this recognition is enormous; it confirms what much of the world already knew, solidifying the narrative of Russian culpability and making it harder for Russia to deflect blame or deny its actions.
The response from some commentators highlights the cynicism surrounding the UN. Some view the organization as slow, ineffective, and too politically entangled to deal decisively with such matters. This incident reinforces those criticisms, although it also shows that some progress can be made within the UN system, even if delayed significantly. The ruling’s delayed nature, however, underscores the frustrations and delays which often characterize the UN’s attempts at resolving conflicts and holding powerful states accountable.
However, beyond the obvious criticism, this ruling represents a victory, albeit a pyrrhic one, for international justice. The long path to securing this recognition only emphasizes the need for urgent reform within international bodies and for a greater commitment from the international community to prevent and punish such acts of aggression swiftly and decisively. The eventual recognition does provide a measure of satisfaction, proving that truth and justice, while delayed, can still prevail. It is a reminder that persistence and the pursuit of truth can eventually lead to accountability, even if justice comes late.
The ruling does not erase the suffering endured by the families of those lost in the tragedy of MH17, nor does it undo the devastation caused by this act of aggression. But it is a step toward recognizing responsibility and potentially holding those responsible accountable under international law. The ICAO’s recognition may provide a small measure of solace to those grieving, a sign that the world, however slowly, is acknowledging the truth and working towards accountability. The process may be flawed, but the end result demonstrates that even through delays, truth and justice can eventually find a path.