AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
What if anything justifies armed conflict10/17/2023 The UN General Assembly has demanded that Russia immediately cease its illegal use of force against the territory of Ukraine in the strongest terms.Īpart from jus ad bellum, which makes the invasion itself illegal, the conduct of the war raises serious concerns with respect to jus in bello. Its action constitutes an act of aggression in breach of the cornerstone legal principle of the prohibition of use of force, laid down in the UN Charter. ![]() Instead, Russia has violated the principle of jus ad bellum (the law relating to the prohibition of recourse to force). Similarly, Russian references to “genocide” in eastern Ukraine to justify its intervention cannot be substantiated and offer no justification for military action under international law. This remains the case even if you accept the most elastic interpretation of the notion of “ imminent attack” which Russia might use to justify invading – such as “anticipatory” or even “preventive” self-defence. The Russian invocation of individual or collective self-defence is of no legal merit. The Russian invasion of Ukraine flagrantly violates the post-second world war international legal order. Where is international law within the “fog” of war? The relevant norms have plenty to say on this particular subject. ![]() But two weeks since the Russian war machine crossed into Ukraine, the images of civilian humanitarian suffering make people wonder whether international law has any value at all in the middle of an armed conflict.
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |