THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW IN THE RUSSIA UKRAINE CONFLICT

AISHA RASHEED

THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW IN THE RUSSIA UKRAINE CONFLICT

[ Prepared by AISHA RASHEED, Women Ascension Peace and Justice (WAPJ), Supervisor: Dr. Maheen Amjad; Submitted in [partial] fulfilment of the requirements for the internship of Peace and Justice Programme , Centre for Learning Innovation, Women Ascension, May-2024]

Introduction

THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW IN THE RUSSIA UKRAINE CONFLICT — *Image source: https://bit.ly/3mrcVu7*

“Laws are like cobwebs, which may catch small flies, but let wasps and hornets break through.” – Jonathan Swift, Anglo-Irish satirist.

International law has established a framework for regulating armed conflict and protecting civilians. The Geneva Conventions, a cornerstone of this framework, outline the rights and obligations of warring parties. But are these international treaties enough to deter a powerful nation like Russia?

This article delves into the specific provisions enshrined in these laws and analyzes their applicability in the current situation. We will examine how, despite their existence, these very laws seem to be catching a “fly” while a “hornet” continues its rampage in Ukraine.

This article explores how international law confronts the brutal reality of the Ukraine war. We’ll delve into Ukraine’s history, the contested regions, and the legal principle shattered by Russia’s invasion. Finally, we’ll examine the international response to this devastating conflict.

Background Information

NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, played a significant role in the downfall of the USSR. Firstly, NATO was formed in 1949 as a military alliance to counter the threat posed by the Soviet Union and its eastern bloc allies during the cold war. This alliance provided western countries with a collective defense mechanism against the spread of communism and soviet aggression.

Secondly, NATO’s expansion into eastern Europe following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 was seen by Russia as a direct challenge to its security and influence in the region. The expansion of NATO into former Warsaw Pact countries like Poland, Hungary, and the Baltic states was viewed by Russia as a violation of assurances given at the end of the cold war that NATO would not expand further eastward.

As a result, Russia has long been wary of further NATO expansion into Ukraine, which it views as a strategic buffer zone and an important part of its sphere of influence. The prospect of Ukraine joining NATO has been a point of contention between Russia and the west for decades, with Russia strongly opposing any such move.

The involvement of NATO in the Ukraine crisis, through its support for the pro-western government in Kiev and its condemnation of Russia’s actions in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, has further exacerbated tensions between Russia and the west. Russia sees NATO’s involvement as a direct challenge to its security interests and a threat to its influence in Ukraine, leading to increased militarization and conflict in the region.

Turning point came in 2004 with the Orange Revolution – mass protests that ousted a pro-Russian leader and pushed Ukraine towards closer ties with the West. This shift westward worried Russia, who viewed Ukraine as part of its historical sphere of influence.

Further straining relations was Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. Crimea, a strategically important peninsula with a majority Russian population, was seized by Russia following political instability in Ukraine. Russia justified this move based on historical ties and concerns about ethnic Russians. The West condemned it as a violation of Ukrainian sovereignty.

Meanwhile, in eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region, where there’s a large ethnic Russian population, pro-Russian separatists launched an armed rebellion supported by Russia. Donbas is also rich in natural resources, making it economically valuable. Russia likely desires to control Donbas to expand its territory, exert influence over Ukraine, and limit its westward tilt.

Ukraine, on the other hand, fiercely resists losing any further territory and strives to maintain its territorial integrity and independence. This ignited a low-intensity war in Donbas that simmered for eight years.

A key factor in the current conflict is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a military alliance focused on collective defense. Ukraine aspires to join NATO, which would provide security guarantees against Russian aggression. However, Russia vehemently opposes this. From Russia’s perspective, a NATO-aligned Ukraine on its border poses a security threat. Russia fears NATO’s military infrastructure and influence expanding closer to its borders.

Additionally, Russia may see Ukrainian membership in NATO as a symbolic rejection of its historical ties and influence in the region. This desire for a buffer zone and opposition to NATO expansion are significant factors driving the current conflict.

Main Body

Section 1 The Legal Framework Governing the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

The war in Ukraine has caused immense casualties among both soldiers and civilians. International law, specifically International Humanitarian Law (IHL), applies to this conflict with the aim of minimizing civilian suffering. A core principle of IHL is the distinction between combatants and civilians, enshrined in the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

These conventions, particularly Article 51 of Protocol I of 1977, prohibit direct attacks on civilians and civilian objects like homes, hospitals, and schools. The horrific bombings and shelling of these areas during the war tragically represent violations of this cornerstone of IHL.

Furthermore, IHL prohibits indiscriminate attacks that strike military targets and civilians without distinction. This principle is elaborated upon in Article 57 of Protocol I which forbids attacks that cannot be clearly directed at a military objective or whose impact on civilians is expected to be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage.

For instance, shelling a city center with imprecise artillery would likely be considered an indiscriminate attack, violating this protocol. IHL also protects captured soldiers. Article 13 of the Third Geneva Convention requires the humane treatment of captured combatants, including providing them with food, water, and medical care, and protecting them from violence or torture. There have been concerning reports of mistreatment of prisoners of war on both sides of the conflict, which would be violations of this convention.

The Hague Convention of 1907, another key piece of international law, complements IHL by restricting the use of certain weapons considered especially inhumane. For example, Protocol I of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons bans landmines and cluster munitions due to the indiscriminate harm they cause to civilians.

These international laws establish rules to lessen the brutality of war and safeguard civilians. In the context of the Russia-Ukraine war, IHL provides a framework to assess the legality of military actions and hold those responsible for violations accountable.

Section 2: Does International Law Have Teeth?

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is investigating potential war crimes, but its effectiveness hinges on cooperation from member states, which Russia is not. Additionally, the UN Security Council, with its ability to authorize sanctions or peacekeeping forces, is hampered by Russia’s veto power, making collective action difficult.

There’s also a perception that international law applies more stringently to weaker nations. However, powerful states like Russia still face consequences. These can include diplomatic isolation, economic sanctions, and a tarnished international reputation. While there may not be an immediate military response, the ongoing ICC investigation and international condemnation serve to pressure Russia and potentially lead to future prosecutions. Economic sanctions aim to cripple Russia’s economy and limit its ability to wage war.

The situation in Ukraine remains dynamic, but it demonstrates that international law isn’t entirely powerless. It functions as a framework for documenting violations, holding states accountable in the long term, and deterring future abuses.

Section 3: World Leaders React to the Crisis The international community has sprung into action in response to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The United States has been a leading voice in condemning the invasion and supplying significant military aid to Ukraine. President Biden himself declared that Russia would be held accountable and that the US would stand with Ukraine in their fight for freedom.

The European Union has mirrored this strong stance, enacting unprecedented economic sanctions targeting Russia’s financial sector, energy exports, and key individuals. Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, emphasized the aim to cripple Putin’s ability to fund his war machine.

The United Nations has also played a crucial role. The General Assembly overwhelmingly condemned Russia’s aggression and demanded its withdrawal, with Secretary-General Antonio Guterres calling the war a clear violation of the UN Charter and international law. Other major powers like the United Kingdom, Canada, and Japan have echoed this condemnation and provided varying degrees of military and financial aid to Ukraine.

Beyond immediate responses, the international community is emphasizing the importance of upholding international law. Russia’s actions are seen as a blatant violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, enshrined principles within the UN Charter. The use of force against another state, except in self-defense, is also prohibited by the Charter.

Analysis (Scholar’s Vision for Resolving the Crisis)

Lena Lutsevych, a prominent scholar on Ukrainian politics and international security, offers a perspective on resolving the Russia-Ukraine crisis that emphasizes upholding international law. Lutsevych believes a strong Ukrainian victory is essential, not just to reclaim lost territory, but to deliver justice for war crimes and hold Russia accountable for its actions. This, she argues, is necessary to rebuild trust and create a foundation for lasting security in Europe.

Furthermore, Lutsevych highlights the importance of deterring future Russian aggression, potentially through continued military aid for Ukraine, economic sanctions on Russia, and a firm stance from the West against violations of international law. Finally, she suggests that the war presents an opportunity to reshape the security architecture in Eurasia, with a new framework that prioritizes respect for international law and the sovereignty of nations.

Fyodor lukyanov, one prominent Russian scholar and expert, has emphasized the need for a diplomatic solution to the conflict, advocating for dialogue and negotiations between all parties involved. Lukyanov has suggested that a potential resolution to the crisis could involve a diplomatic settlement that respects Ukraine’s territorial integrity while addressing Russia’s security concerns.

He has also highlighted the importance of finding a peaceful solution that takes into account the interests of all parties, including Ukraine, Russia, and other regional actors. Overall, lukyanov’s vision for resolving the Ukraine Russia crisis emphasizes the importance of diplomacy, dialogue, and mutual respect in order to achieve a lasting peace and stability in the region. His insights offer a valuable perspective on potential paths towards de-escalation and conflict resolution.

Conclusion: Sovereign states should have the autonomy to make their own decisions without foreign involvement. In this case, Ukraine’s involvement with NATO and the United States has only escalated the conflict with Russia, leading to further instability in the region.

By not signing up for NATO, Ukraine can maintain its independence and avoid getting entangled in geopolitical rivalries that may not necessarily serve its best interests. It is essential for countries to prioritize their own national security and sovereignty above external alliances that may potentially exacerbate tensions and conflicts. Ultimately, avoiding foreign involvement can help prevent further escalation and promote peace and stability in the region.

The most important thing is that, War benefits no one. Regardless of the outcome, war invariably brings destruction, suffering, and long-lasting trauma to all involved. History has repeatedly shown that wars, whether won or lost, result in significant loss of life, economic hardship, and the devastation of communities and infrastructure.

The human cost is immeasurable, with countless lives disrupted and dreams shattered. Additionally, the environmental damage and the social and psychological scars left behind can last for generations, impeding progress and fostering further conflict.