Russia and Ukraine Conflict from International Law Perspective

Author- Sudhanshu Pratap Singh*

As calls for war grow louder, there has been much speculation about how the West can react against Russian invasion of Ukraine. The majority of proposals have centred on imposing penalties, such as cutting Russia out of the international banking system and making it an economic pariah. The terminology employed is almost entirely that of a realism geopolitical conflict between a rising Russia and an increasingly defensive West – and how the latter may prevent the former.

As a member of the legal fraternity, we are troubled by the fact that the international legal framework controlling the use of force is glaringly lacking from public discussion of Russia’s invasion. President Putin warned in a pre-dawn TV broadcast on February 24 that Russia could not feel “secure, develop, or exist” because of what he believed was a persistent danger from contemporary Ukraine.

Airports and military headquarters were assaulted immediately, followed by tanks and troops from Russia, Russian-annexed Crimea, and its ally Belarus. Cities have been bombarded, neighbourhoods have been devastated, and millions of Ukrainians have left their homes. Despite this, Russia outlaws the phrases “war” and “invasion,” and threatens journalists with jail if they use them. This is a “special military operation” according to President Putin. Many of his war arguments were inaccurate or illogical. He stated that his goal was to protect people who had been subjected to bullying and genocide, as well as to “demilitarise and de-Nazify” Ukraine. There has been no genocide in Ukraine, which is a thriving democracy led by a Jewish president.

“How could I be a Nazi?” said Volodymyr Zelensky, who compared Russia’s invasion to Nazi Germany’s invasion in World War II. Russia’s slander was also denounced by Ukraine’s head rabbi and the Auschwitz Memorial.

The General Assembly, Reaffirming the centrality of the United States Charter in promoting the rule of law among nations.

Recalling all States’ obligations under Article 2 of the Charter to refrain from threatening or using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations, and to settle international disputes peacefully.

Recalling also the duty under Article 2 (2) of the Charter that all Members should fulfil in good faith the commitments accepted by them in accordance with the Charter in order to safeguard to all of them the rights and benefits flowing from membership.

Taking note of Security Council Resolution 2623 (2022) of February 27, 2022, in which the Council requested an emergency special session of the General Assembly to consider the question raised in document S/Agenda/8979. Recalling General Assembly Resolution 377 A (V) of 3 November 1950, titled “Uniting for Peace,” and taking into account that the Security Council’s lack of unanimity at its 8979th meeting prevented it from carrying out its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Recalling also its resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970, in which it approved the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States in accordance with the United Nations Charter, and reaffirming the principles contained therein that a State’s territory shall not be the object of acquisition by another State as a result of the threat or use of force, and that any attempt aimed at the partial or total annexation of a State. Further recalling its resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, which defines aggression as the use of military force by one state against another state’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, or political independence, or in any other way that is inconsistent with the Charter.

Keeping in mind the significance of maintaining and strengthening international peace based on freedom, equality, justice, and respect for human rights, as well as the importance of developing friendly relations among nations regardless of their political, economic, and social systems or levels of development.

Recalling the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, signed on 1 August 1975 in Helsinki, and the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine’s Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, signed on 5 December 1994.

Condemning the Russian Federation’s proclamation of a “special military operation” in Ukraine on February 24, 2022. Reaffirming that no territorial acquisition stemming from the threat or use of force is permissible. Concerned about allegations of strikes on civilian institutions such as dwellings, schools, and hospitals, as well as civilian deaths, including women, the elderly, people with disabilities, and children. Recognizing that the Russian Federation’s military actions within Ukraine’s sovereign territory are on a scale that the international community has not seen in Europe in decades, and that immediate action is required to spare this generation from the scourge of war. Endorsing the Secretary-statement Generals of February 24, 2022, in which he recalled that the use of force by one country against another is a repudiation of the principles that every country has pledged to uphold and that the Russian Federation’s current military offensive is in violation of the Charter.

Condemning the Russian Federation’s decision to strengthen the readiness of its nuclear forces. Concerned about the deterioration of the humanitarian situation in and around Ukraine, with an increasing number of internally displaced people and refugees in need of humanitarian assistance. Concerns have also been expressed about the potential impact of the conflict on increased global food insecurity, as Ukraine and the region are one of the world’s most important areas for grain and agricultural exports, at a time when millions of people are facing famine or the imminent threat of famine, or are experiencing severe food insecurity in several regions around the world, as well as on energy security.

Welcoming the Secretary-continuing General’s efforts, as well as those of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and other international and regional organisations, to help the de-escalation of the situation in Ukraine, and urging continuous discussion.

“India has a connection with countries involved in the war – economically, security-wise, educationally, and politically as well; India’s various needs are connected to these countries,” Prime Minister Narendra Modi said during a speech in New Delhi. He went on to say that because India has ties to both nations, it is continually advocating for peace and dialogue. “Every country on the planet is affected by the ongoing conflict. India is on the side of peace and hopes that all issues can be resolved through deliberation” said the Prime Minister.

Earlier, India and 34 other nations voted against a UN General Assembly resolution condemning Russia for its military activities in Ukraine. India also voted against calling a General Assembly session on the Ukraine issue in a UN Security Council procedural motion.

Nearly 22,000 Indians, mostly students, have already been evacuated from Ukraine’s most vulnerable areas, including Kharkiv and Sumy. “It is said that even while hundreds of Indian students and residents were stranded in Ukraine, there was talk of shattering the morale of the country,” Prime Minister Narendra Modi stated. The Ministry of External Affairs has sent more than 50 Russian-speaking personnel to Ukraine to carry out Operation Ganga. A special team led by a joint secretary will make on-the-ground decisions on evacuation within war-torn areas. Ukraine also took out from New Delhi.

The time has arrived to take action. The significance of international law is found not only in how it leads to punishment, but also in how it prevents violations from arising in the first place. Some authority – whether the ICC, Ukraine, or even the United Nations General Assembly – should clearly and publicly warn Russia that an act of aggression is a serious breach of and a crime under international law, regardless of whether anybody is prosecuted for it.

*The author is working as Legal Advisor at Safeintip LLP IPE and has completed his LLM from NLIU Bhopal

Disclaimer:  The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the text belong solely to the Authors and not to the Jurisedge Academy.

Readers may submit his/her blog for publication. Click Here or Scan the QR Code