Ukraine-Russia Crisis: When International Law Is Violated

The criticism is unanimous: Russia is violating international law with its actions in Ukraine. But when is this violated? And what are the consequences?

Political reactions to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s speech all went in one direction: recognizing the self-proclaimed People’s Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine as independent states is a clear violation of international law, a violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and integrity act of aggression, a declaration of war.

From the point of view of international law, the assessment is similar: a violation of the prohibition on the use of force, which triggers the right to self-defense and the possibility of sanctions.

Main principle of the UN Charter

The relevant legal basis from international law is the United Nations Charter (UN Charter), to which 193 states have committed themselves – including Russia. One of the most important principles is regulated in Article 2 No. 4 – the general ban on the use of force: “In their international relations, all members shall refrain from any threat or use of force directed against the territorial integrity or political independence of a state (…).”

This means that no state may use or even threaten military force against another. “This is a great achievement by the United Nations,” says Bochum international law expert Pierre Thielbörger. “It used to be (…) that war is the continuation of politics by other means. And the United Nations have made it their highest goal that this no longer applies.”

Two violations of the prohibition of violence

In the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine, Thielbörger sees two violations of the ban on the use of force: the concentration of Russian troops is, taken together, a threat of violence. “And now that it has been decided and indeed started that Russian troops will be transferred to the territory of Ukraine, we even have a direct use of force.”

Added to this is the recognition of the self-proclaimed People’s Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine as independent states. Thielbörger says this is a violation of the ban on intervention in Article 2 No. 1 of the UN Charter. “It also violates Ukraine’s internal affairs.”

Naturalization of Eastern Ukrainians

Russia has been naturalizing eastern Ukrainians for a while. In principle, a state can freely determine the conditions under which it recognizes people as new citizens. “That also happens frequently. Think of the area of ​​professional sports,” says Thielbörger.

This is to be assessed differently if a systematic attempt is made through naturalization to destabilize the state, which is losing citizens as a result. “That may well be illegal interference in the internal affairs of the state. So another violation of Article 2 No. 1 of the UN Charter.”

Ukraine’s right to sovereignty

In his speech, Putin also denied Ukraine’s right to sovereignty. Is something like that even possible? The international law expert’s clear answer: “No.” That’s nonsense. According to almost all other states, Ukraine is a state. “It is a state with national territory, state people and state power. And that is where sovereignty comes from,” says Thielbörger. All the arguments that were presented historically are interesting for the international law expert, but irrelevant.

right to self-determination of peoples

A border shift would be legally permissible if Russia and Ukraine had contractually agreed on it. But they haven’t. In extreme exceptional cases, peoples also have a so-called right of secession – i.e. the right to secede. This in turn results from the right to self-determination of peoples.

Thielbörger emphasizes that it is about cases of particularly serious human rights violations against a group. “This threshold has definitely not been reached here,” he says. “This right to secession certainly did not belong to the eastern Ukrainians.”

right to self-defense

However, the UN Charter recognizes exceptions to the ban on the use of force. For example, the right to self-defence, which is regulated in Article 51. An armed attack is required. And so Putin justifies his actions with the fact that Russia is threatened by a possible accession of Ukraine to NATO. From a legal point of view, this argument is rather irrelevant, says Thielbörger. In no case could it justify military force.

From the point of view of the international law expert, however, Ukraine could now be entitled to this right. “Troops have now been moved into Ukrainian national territory, also in very large numbers. There might be something to suggest that Ukraine now also has a right to self-defense.” And this right to self-defense can also be exercised “collectively”. That means the other states could provide military assistance to Ukraine, “completely independent of what NATO says about it.”

economic sanctions

As a reaction to the Russian actions, the termination of diplomatic relations and economic sanctions are also conceivable, as are currently being announced – such as travel bans or the freezing of accounts. In theory, the UN Security Council could also position itself. Since Russia has a veto right there, it will probably not come to that.

The situation is different in the UN General Assembly. There are no veto rights there. This body could therefore “condemn (Russia’s) actions with a unified global voice,” says Thielbörger.

Judicial Enforcement

Again, more in theory, there is a possibility of bringing Russia’s actions before the United Nations International Court of Justice. However, Russia would have to submit to the jurisdiction for this. “It would have to say, yes, the International Court of Justice can deal with this dispute. And the Russians won’t do that,” said Thielbörger.

However, both Russia and Ukraine are also members of the Council of Europe. This opens up the possibility of having human rights violations reviewed by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Such a complaint can be made by the people affected and also by the states themselves. In connection with the conflicts in Crimea and in eastern Ukraine, there are already several state complaints and over 8,500 individual complaints at the Human Rights Court. Decisions are still pending.