“A flagrant violation of international law.” Vladimir Putin’s announcement ofa military operation in Ukraine, Thursday, February 24, drew unanimous condemnation from the international community. Many countries, including France, have in particular considered that the actions of the Russian president flout the main principles which govern relations between States. “We will never accept the brutal violation of international law as we see it now with the invasion of Ukraine”affirmed the Secretary General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, following an emergency meeting of Alliance ambassadors.
>> War in Ukraine: follow the evolution of the situation in our live
The dispatch of Russian troops, three days after the recognition of the republics self-proclaimed of Luhansk and Donetsk, “illustrates the contempt in which the Russia holds international law and the United Nations”for his part denounced the French ambassador to the UN, Nicholas of River. Franceinfo takes stock of what the international law of Russia’s actions says.
Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations, of which Russia is a member, provides in particular that the member countries of the United Nations “shall refrain (…) from resorting to the threat or use of force, either against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations .” So he puts “the principle of aggression of an outlaw state”decrypts for franceinfo Olivier Schmitt, director of studies and research at the Institute for Advanced National Defense Studies (IHEDN).
“There, we are very clearly within the framework of an aggression, the violation of the sovereignty of Ukraine and its integrity.”
Olivier Schmitt, defense specialistat franceinfo
The principles of “the Charter of the United Nations is not an à la carte menu” and Russia must “apply them all” towards Ukraine, castigated UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres on Tuesday. “The Member States have all accepted them and they must all apply them”he insisted.
For its part, Ukraine has invoked Article 51 of the Charter, which regulates self-defence in the event of aggression, “to justify its use of force” in response to the Russian offensive, continues Olivier Schmitt. It is also this same article that Vladimir Putin brandished to explain the triggering of a military operation in Ukraine, claiming to respond to the call of the separatist “republics” of Donbass. “VSis a complete reversal of the reality of the situation, sweeps Olivier Schmitt. Self-proclaimed republics are not recognized as such by Ukrainian law, the Russians had no right to answer their call.”
The Russian decisions also carry a “fatal blow to the Minsk agreements approved by the Security Council”, according to the UN chief. The Minsk protocols, signed in 2014 (Minsk I) and 2015 (Minsk II) between Russia, Ukraine and the two separatist “republics”, notably provided for an immediate ceasefire and the withdrawal of heavy weapons. Many points, including the organization of elections in the separatist territories, however, have never been applied, underlines the Robert Schuman Foundation, a center for research and studies on Europe. Moreover, officially, these texts are protocols, a status that is less precise and less binding than international agreements.
The actions of Vladimir Putin also constitute a violation of the Budapest memorandum, explains to franceinfo Carole Grimaud-Potter, professor of geopolitics of Russia at the University of Montpellier and at the Diplomatic Institute of Paris. This text signed in 1994, and concluded between Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom and Ukraine, aimed to “guarantee the preservation of Ukraine’s borders”, explains the researcher. Nevertheless, the Budapest memorandum does not include “no binding party”. “The signatory countries are committed to guaranteeing security” of Ukraine, but this principle rests above all on their good faith.
This is not the first time that Vladimir Putin has violated the principles of international law. In 2008, the Kremlin recognized the independence of two pro-Russian separatist “republics” in Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, after a lightning war against this former Soviet republic which, like Ukraine, aims to join NATO. In January 2021, 13 years after the events, the European Court of Human Rights found that Russia had breached its Convention, recalls Le Parisien (subscribers link).
In 2014, during the annexation of Crimea, the draft UN resolution declaring “invalid” the referendum on the annexation of the autonomous republic to Russia was vetoed by Moscow, a permanent member of the Security Council. At the General Assembly, out of 193 members, the draft resolution then collected 100 votes. However, the resolutions adopted by the Assembly have no binding legal character in international law, unlike those validated by the Security Council. This scenario is once again likely to occur, suggests Olivier Schmitt.
“The UN Security Council will be paralyzed and will not be able to play its role in maintaining international peace and security.”
Olivier Schmitt, defense specialistat franceinfo
International law “has never been a miracle, it is the result of a political consensus”call back to the Parisian Jean-Marc Sorel, professor of public law at the Sorbonne Law School. “You can’t change the world with the law”he presses.
Ultimately, the cost to Russia is “mainly political”, engages Olivier Schmitt. The specialist recalls that the annexation of Crimea, as well as the occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, had not been recognized by several countries. “But there’s no state criminal court, so beyond the states’ statements of condemnation, there’s no court they can go to.”, he adds. On the other hand, from a legal point of view, Ukraine’s aggression, as defined in the Charter of the United Nations, gives countries the right to “to help, in any way that exists”, including militarily.