Russia-Ukrainian War: the Conflict That Has Killed International Law

On 2022 February 24, the Russian leader Vladimir Putin decided to invade Ukraine and began to try and take the country by force. Putin had sent troops to the ex-Soviet nation across three fronts and launched missiles on many places around the capital, Kyiv, in a sweeping offensive that has elicited strong criticism from foreign leaders. Russia and Ukraine have had conflicts for centuries. The rationale for this ongoing war is that Putin has been focused on two linked vantage points: Ukraine's historical links with Russia and Ukraine's interest in joining the NATO military alliance. This conflict does have an impact on international law and also has killed international law. It did not end international law, but it did kill it. Russia did illegal conduct under international law by invading Ukraine. This conflict is also a political issue for Ukraine, Russia and Canada.

The law of war is the significant body law that governs, among many other aspects, the use of force, the conduct of hostilities, and the protection of war victims. The word is frequently used interchangeably with the law of armed conflict and international humanitarian law.

In international law, Article 2.4 of the Charter of the United Nations states that, In their international interactions, all Parties should resist threatening or using force against any State's territorial sovereignty or political independence. The sole exceptions to all those principles are self-defence and when appropriate use of action is approved by the UN Security Council (Chapter VII of the UN Charter). However, Russia had failed to follow these exceptions, which is why this had made Russia's actions unlawful under international law. The undeclared war between Ukraine and Russia calls into question international law in a substantial way. Three international law principles are indeed being infringed throughout this conflict: countries' sovereignty, political independence, and territorial integrity, all of which have been universally acknowledged and incorporated in the United Nations Charter. As a sovereign state, Ukraine does have the right and control over its territory; an assault on a sovereign state is a breach of this principle, which is expressly stated in Article 2, clause 3 of the United Nations Charter. The confrontation between Russia and Ukraine is a significant cause of concern for international law. The advance of Russian troops to Mariupol has led to the loss of many lives as well as the devastation of many towns, rendering others unusable. To make this situation worse, people's freedom was revoked, as well as the horrors of the war will linger on in the minds of both military and residents. To be skeptical of this issue, evaluate the goal of war.

Hardly any of President Putin's arguments for the invasion of Ukraine, much alone the need to protect the two republics inside the Donbas area, could be regarded as qualified by the self-defence exemption. The primary violation is indeed the attack on the territorial sovereignty and independence of the Ukrainian state. This suggests an implied infringement of Jus Cogen norms, which are deemed hierarchically superior and therefore can not be abstained in any situation. Within that regard, initiatives have been undertaken within the framework of international law, including The proclamation of international responsibility for aggression against territorial sovereignty. Ukraine has already progressed several claims to the International Court and international criminal responsibility for the specific case of Vladimir Putin. Even so, to prevent the use of armed action, countries are placing financial, commercial, and geopolitical sanctions on Russia in order to impose economic pressure. As a multilateral institution, the United Nations, mainly NATO, are now involved in preventing Russian aggression and development. Article 2 of the UN Charter forbids the use of force. However, nothing in the Charter prohibits one or more nations from imposing economic penalties upon others. It might be argued that international law alone cannot accomplish justice and that legal decisions made by countries would not help if we pretend to disregard social and political conditions. Throughout this regard, it is crucial to remember that perhaps the social and political backdrop plays a significant role in conflict resolution, particularly in the types of penalties and measures that the international community and individual nations might conduct.

On the Russian side, they believe that Ukraine must be taken over in order to prevent NATO from recognizing the nation. Another objective would be to recapture territory lost during the 'Cold War,' while Ukraine was indeed a significant Russian province. Because Ukraine is a prosperous country, regaining it will benefit Russia's economy. Russia's President Vladimir Putin has indicated that resolving the current Russia-Ukraine crisis is essential in order to avert a wider confrontation if Ukraine joins NATO. He believed their tactics were justified as they would prevent further harm. On the other hand, Ukrainians are also fighting for their moral rights to be free, and independent, as well as to live in peace. They acknowledge their moral obligation to protect what they cherish and to advocate for what they believe is right. However, Russia is defending its conduct by using legal language. Certain efforts at legal justifications may be found in President Vladimir Putin's recent statements, but they do not hold up under inspection. Putin stated that 'the people's republics of Donbas resorted to Russia with a call for assistance' and then attempted to legitimize his military action under Article 51 of the UN Charter. However, the power to collective self-defence exists exclusively in relation to states; humanitarian effort on behalf of its members within a state has still not found a home in international law. Just Russia has acknowledged these two territories as independent states.

On February 23, Putin reiterated his previous assertion that the Ukrainian government oppresses the people of the two breakaway republics and that genocide has been perpetrated against them. This unfounded charge is crucial not just to the claim of self-defence in defence of these territories but to Russia's recognition of them as distinct entities. International law doesn't exceptionally grant the residents of a section of a state the right to rebel from that state. The part of self-determination that permits the sovereignty of a 'people' relates to individuals in colonies and other foreign regions occupied by another state. Another aspect of self-determination is 'internal,' which includes the freedom to independently select political status and pursue economic, social, and cultural development inside the state as the Minsk agreements aimed to offer for Donetsk and Luhansk. In international law, there is a somewhat controversial idea which would grant a right to secede from a state if the citizens in issue were subjected to significant human rights abuses and systematic oppression. This will be the notion of restorative secession, which was invoked by several nations, including Switzerland, before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in reference to Kosovo's proclamation of independence from Serbia, the independence that Russia has yet to acknowledge. However, the theory is not supported by international courts, and even if it were, Russia has previously indicated that a right to corrective seceding seems to be 'limited to genuinely extraordinary situations. Including an outright armed assault by the parent State, making threats to the very presence of the individuals in question.

To Add, a political issue that involves Canada and the conflict with Russia and Ukraine is that the Prime minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, is getting himself involved in this war between Russia and Ukraine. Even though Russia has stated that Canada should stay out of this war because it does not involve them and has nothing to do with Canada because it is not part of NATO. If Trudeau gets involved, Russia will launch an attack on Canada as well. Putin warned Trudeau not to become involved in this political problem because he may endanger his country and people. Trudeau is only thinking about himself and not about the people in his country. If he keeps getting himself involved in this situation, it will put us all in danger and himself in danger as well. Russia is capable of putting an attack on Canada because Putin seems not to care who he attacks and is willing to go to war with the United States as well. The people of Russia had no say in whether or not the country was invaded. Many people are outraged. Many households have members who are both Russian and Ukrainian. As a result, many people on both sides of the border do not want to fight each other in a conflict. This is a political issue because Trudeau is not playing the safe card with Russia and is just attempting to remain relevant in the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. Russia is a powerful country with great weapons that may start a war at any time and may involve Canada if Trudeau continues to attempt to get himself involved, despite the fact that he should mind his own business and not put his country and his people at risk.

To conclude, yes, Russia's invasion of Ukraine did kill international law because Russia did illegal conduct under international law by just going and invading Ukraine. The Russians army forced themself into Ukraine so they can take it by force which is a violation against international law. Several commentators, including the United States Secretary of State and other foreign government officials, have identified evidence that the Russian military allegedly attacked people, bombed protected places, and engaged in other activities which break international law governing the conduct of war. This Legal Sidebar gives a general description of the international legal framework regulating the use of force throughout the invasion of Ukraine and finishes with a consideration of accountability pathways and choices for Congress.