Russia is currently doing everything to justify the aggression of the Ukrainian territory, even to pervert the institution that is international law in its wake. It helps to pervert it, but all the same reminds us that it does indeed exist.
Posted at 1:00 p.m.
States have an insatiable thirst for legitimacy. Since the fall of the USSR, Vladimir Poutine tries by all the means to recreate this empire which reigned formerly on 300 million individuals. However, to ensure that the West does not interfere with its sinister plans, it has opted for a strategy of legitimizing each of its land conquests by the relevant provisions applicable under international law.
Crimea, for example, was seen by the Kremlin as a genuine case of the right to self-determination, a right enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, Article 1 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Declaration on Friendly Relations and cooperation between states. This right has also been considered by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion on the Chagos Archipelago, the advisory opinion on the wall in the occupied Palestinian territory and the advisory opinion on the independence of Kosovo.
According to Moscow’s speech, Russia has in fact only created the necessary political and security conditions for the people of Crimea to freely exercise their right to self-determination. If that includes the possibility of joining the Russian Federation, so be it.
The process of carving up Ukraine had then begun.
The same situation applies to the current war which Russia is waging with the utmost disregard for international law. The irony is that Putin meticulously justified each of his actions with existing provisions of international law. Indeed, he claimed that the Russian-speaking minority in the Donbass region was a victim of genocide, invoking the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
He also justified sending troops to Ukraine – what he called his “special military intervention” – under the guise of a peacekeeping operation, relying on the existing provisions of the Charter of Nations. United Nations. Indeed, article 42 makes possible the conduct of such operations to maintain or restore peace and security. However, this may have escaped Putin, but only the Security Council can authorize such operations.
The United States did the same under former President Bush Jr. when the right to self-defense was invoked (Article 51 of the United Nations Charter) to justify the invasion of Iraq. This line of reasoning is perhaps as creative as that presented recently by Putin…
This perversion of international law seems to be an integral part of State practice. I am deeply saddened to see how easily international law can be corrupted to accommodate the needs of war criminals and the greatest despots who all share this deep contempt for humanity. But one thing is clear: international law, as a value system, does exist.