Since the founding of the United Nations (UN) at the end of the Second World War in 1945, the use of force between States has been illegal under international law, with the exception of self-defence and military intervention authorized by the Security Council in the event of a threat to international peace and security. In all other circumstances, the military action of one country against another constitutes a violation of its territorial integrity, an essential component of sovereignty, and generally—this is the case here—an aggression. This principle, which results from an agreement that would have been unimaginable until then, is the cornerstone of modern international law.
This rule has been relatively well respected, at least since the end of the cold war. Thus, wars which oppose States to each other are quite rare today, unlike non-international armed conflicts — those wars which oppose one or more States to one or more armed groups, or armed groups to each other —, whose the number has greatly increased since the end of the Second World War. In recent years, state involvement in armed conflicts abroad has tended to be against armed groups, often alongside a territorial state or with its consent (Russia and Western forces in Syria, the Saudi Arabia in Yemen, France and some West African countries in Mali, for example) or by financing or arming armed groups. Of course, there have recently been the not insignificant invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 by the United States, the United Kingdom, then NATO, and of Iraq in 2003 by the United States and a few allies. With the difference that, each time, notwithstanding well-founded criticisms of these interventions with regard to their legality, a rhetoric was conscientiously constructed to legitimize them in the eyes of the international community: massive violations of human rights, presumed self-defense, etc. .
Here, if Russia weakly invoked a duty to interfere for the well-being of the pro-Russian populations in Ukraine on Thursday, the scale of its strike as well as the non-recognition of Ukrainian sovereignty by President Putin quickly denied this justification. . Russia, great power that she is, has accustomed us to a relative indifference to established rules; its action in Ukraine demonstrates a disturbing rebellion at the heart of the international order, rarely so knowingly violated.
The law in this war
In armed conflict, anyone who takes up arms must respect international humanitarian law, which is based on the idea that the aim of a belligerent’s military action, regardless of its legality or legitimacy in the eyes of international law, must be limited to weakening the military potential of the adversary.
Thus, on one side or the other, direct attacks against civilians, civil, cultural and medical infrastructures, attacks which cause disproportionate loss or damage among protected persons and property, the use of methods and means of warfare which cause superfluous harm or which are incapable of discriminating a target, in particular, are prohibited. It is difficult to get a picture of the violations that have occurred in an ongoing conflict, especially so quickly. Especially since the application of the rules in Ukraine is complicated by the resistance movement resulting from the asymmetry of the conflict: from the moment a civilian takes up arms against the invader, he loses his protection against attacks for the duration of its participation in hostilities. Nevertheless, the first echoes reaching us from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs are worrying.
In this context, what about the potential use of nuclear weapons, or even the threat of using them, by Russia? If nuclear weapons are not among the weapons explicitly prohibited by international law, as the International Court of Justice ruled in 1996, it is doubtful that they can respect the fundamental principles of discrimination and distinction, and therefore comply with humanitarian law.
Is the West at war?
Currently, the war is between Russia and Ukraine. Neither the political and economic sanctions against Russia nor the financial support for Ukraine make their recipients parties to the conflict. Conversely, if a State were to intervene militarily in Ukraine, to control the military action or to be attacked by one of the belligerents, this State would become a party to the conflict. A concept of a global war by the West against Russia, akin to Bush’s “war on terror”, has no basis in international law.
History will tell us how far the violations of international law will go in this armed conflict. For the time being, but this could change quickly, the only violation of international law that is confirmed is the aggression of Ukraine by Russia; information is lacking to confirm anything else. It is unquestionably to be hoped that the war will end as soon as possible, in order to reduce the occurrence of other violations of international law which, day by day, will cost human lives, will make the already immense wrongs more difficult to repair and will continue to distance the parties from a necessary and painful peace agreement.