Back to Blog
Half life opposing force rom5/27/2023 ![]() ![]() Likewise, the American invasion of Iraq on false claims does not change the fact that Iraq’s compliance record with disarmament obligations had also been poor. Allegations of violations of human rights law against Russian minorities in Ukraine have also been made. On the contrary, they point to the need for a harder look at allegations of violation of other branches of international law that just do not receive the same level of attention as jus contra bellum and international humanitarian law.įor instance, there is a debate on whether the verbal promises made by officials of NATO states in the early 1990s not to expand the alliance eastward represent legally binding obligations that have since been breached. However, the fact that these are not legal justifications for the use of force does not mean that they bear no legal significance. That is according to Russia’s own judgement on NATO’s bombing of Belgrade in 1999. Humanitarian intervention by force to protect civilians without UN Security Council authorisation remains illegal. Likewise, the separatist regions of Ukraine do not satisfy the criteria of statehood for Russia to assert the right to join any collective self-defence. If “pretext” is to be treated simply as a synonym for “justification”, then international law is clear: The presence of an adversary military alliance on Russia’s border is not an armed attack that could justify self-defence by force under jus contra bellum. ![]() Separately, the Group of Seven (G7) nations have accused China of using the recent visit of US Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan as a pretext for provocative military activities near the self-governing island. Unsurprisingly, Russia has cited the pretext that the United States used to invade Iraq in 2003 – the possession of non-existent weapons of mass destruction – to criticise Washington. These are among a growing set of diplomatic postures adopted by states that their opponents dismiss as pretexts. So what then of Russia’s reasonings for its invasion?įrom NATO’s expansion and collective self-defence by the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic to the alleged humiliation and attacks on ethnic Russians, the Kremlin has presented a range of arguments to defend its position on the war. In short, “jus contra bellum” – the legal term for the general prohibition of the use of force by one state against another – and the international rules that seek to limit the effects of armed conflict have both been clearly violated by Russia. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe have also found serious violations of international humanitarian law in Russia’s conduct of the war. The United Nations General Assembly has condemned in the strongest terms Russia’s aggression against Ukraine in violation of the UN Charter, which only allows the inter-state use of force for self-defence or under the Security Council’s authorisation. ![]()
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |