2024271060005 JOSEPH SAMWEL AKECH

MY COMMENTS ON THE RUSSIA – UKRAINE WAR.

Contents:

i. Explanation of Chapter VII of the UN Charter (brief explanation on the specific

Articles),

ii. Reasons advanced by Russia for the invasion of Ukraine.

iii. International community view of the reasons for invasion advanced by Russia.

iv. Specific Articles of the UN Charter breached by the war.

v. Specific actions by the international community against Russia.

vi. Breaches of the UN Charter brought by the war.

vii. Response by NATO and

viii. Any previous experiences of such wars.

Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter addresses actions that the UN Security

Council can take in response to threats to peace, breaches of peace, and acts of aggression. It

provides the framework for the international community to respond to situations that pose a

significant risk to global stability.

Chapter VII of the Charter contains 11 Articles as follows: -

Article 39: This article empowers the Security Council to determine the existence of any threat

to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression. If such a situation is identified, the

Council can take measures to maintain or restore international peace and security

1
Article 40: It allows the Security Council to call upon the parties involved in a dispute to comply

with provisional measures to prevent the situation from escalating while a resolution is being

sought.

Article 41: This article outlines non-military measures that the Security Council can impose,

such as economic sanctions or diplomatic actions (isolation), to maintain or restore international

peace and security.

Article 42: If non-military measures are deemed inadequate, the Security Council can take

military action to restore peace. This can include air, sea, or land armed forces as necessary.

Article 43: This article discusses the obligation of UN member states to make military forces

available to the Security Council for collective security operations.

Article 44: It allows for member states that provide forces to the Security Council to participate

in decision-making regarding the use of those forces.

Article 45: This article emphasizes the need for the Security Council to have a standby

arrangement of armed forces for rapid deployment in case of a threat to peace.

Article 46: It states that plans for the use of armed forces should be made by the Security

Council, and these plans should be kept in readiness.

Article 47: This article establishes the Military Staff Committee, which advises the Security

Council on military matters and helps coordinate the use of armed forces.

Article 48: It outlines the procedures for the Security Council to take action, stating that

decisions should be carried out by all member states.

2
Article 49: This article emphasizes that member states should cooperate in carrying out the

measures decided by the Security Council.

Article 50: It addresses the situation of countries that may be affected economically by the

measures taken by the Security Council, allowing them to seek assistance.

Article 51: This article recognizes the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an

armed attack occurs against a member state, until the Security Council takes necessary measures.

Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022. This marked a significant escalation of the

conflict that had begun in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea and supported separatist

movements in eastern Ukraine. Reasons given by Russia for the invasion are: -

1. Self-Defense: Russia has claimed that it was acting in self-defense to protect Russian-

speaking populations in Ukraine, particularly in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, where

there has been ongoing conflict since 2014. These regions had declared self -

independence from Ukraine and Russia recognized the independence. This argument is

based on Article 51 of the UN Charter, which recognizes the right of self-defense if an

armed attack occurs against a member state. However, the international community

largely views this claim as unfounded, as Ukraine did not pose an armed threat to Russia.

2. Protection of Citizens: Russia has also argued that it has a responsibility to protect its

citizens and ethnic Russians abroad. This concept is sometimes referred to as the

"Responsibility to Protect" (R2P), but it is typically applied in humanitarian contexts and

does not justify military intervention without a clear and imminent threat.

3
 3. Historical Claims: Russia claimed that Ukraine is historically and culturally tied to

Russia and that, Ukraine's sovereignty is a construct of the West hence Ukraine should be

part of a greater Russian sphere of influence. However, these claims do not have a basis

in international law and are not recognized by the international community.

4. Security threat: Concerns about NATO's eastward expansion and Ukraine's potential

membership in NATO; this poses a direct threat to their national security.

The international community largely views Russia's invasion as unjustified and a

violation of international law, particularly the principles of state sovereignty and territorial

integrity outlined in the UN Charter. The reasons provided by Russia have been widely criticized

and rejected by many countries and organizations, which argue that they do not constitute valid

justifications for military aggression. The Security Council has recognized the situation as a

threat to international peace and security; an act of aggression, which falls under the purview of

Article 39.

The Russia-Ukraine war has raised significant concerns regarding breaches of specific

articles in Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which deals with actions concerning threats to the

peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression. Key articles that are often referenced in this

context include: -

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter on the prohibition of the use of force. The International

Court of Justice (ICJ) has been involved in cases related to the conflict, emphasizing the

importance of state sovereignty and territorial integrity.

4
 Article 39: This article allows the UN Security Council to determine the existence of any

threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression. Many argue that Russia's actions in

Ukraine constitute such a breach.

Article 41: This article provides the Security Council with the authority to impose

measures not involving the use of armed force to give effect to its decisions. The international

community has discussed various sanctions against Russia under this article.

Article 42: This allows the Security Council to take military action to maintain or restore

international peace and security. The ongoing conflict has prompted discussions about potential

military responses.

In response to the conflict, the Security Council and various member states have imposed

sanctions on Russia, aligning with Article 41. These sanctions target key sectors of the Russian

economy, individuals, and entities associated with the aggression. Also, while the Security

Council has not authorized direct military intervention under Article 42, many countries have

provided military assistance to Ukraine. This reflects a collective response to support Ukraine's

right to self-defense, as recognized under Article 51 of the UN Charter.

This conflict has led to the following concerns to the international community: -

1. Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity: The principle that states have the right to govern

themselves without external interference has been a focal point in international law discussions

regarding Ukraine's territorial integrity, especially concerning Crimea and the Donbas region.

5
2. Use of Force: The conflict has raised questions about the legality of the use of force under

international law, particularly in relation to the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force

against the territorial integrity of another state.

3. Human Rights Violations: Various international bodies, including the International Criminal

Court (ICC), have been involved in investigating potential war crimes and human rights abuses

committed during the conflict. This includes issues related to the treatment of civilians and

prisoners of war.

4. Sanctions and Economic Measures: The international community has imposed sanctions on

Russia, which raises questions about the legality and effectiveness of such measures under

international law.

5. Self-Determination: The conflict has also sparked debates about the right to self-

determination, particularly in regions with significant ethnic Russian populations.

Why NATO has not directly intervened in the conflict;

Invading Russia could escalate into a large-scale conflict, potentially leading to a nuclear

confrontation, which most NATO members want to avoid. Additionally, Ukraine is not a full

NATO member; it has been a partner and has sought membership, but as of now, it does not have

the same protections under Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, which states that an attack on one

member is an attack on all. This means that NATO is not obligated to intervene militarily in the

conflict between Ukraine and Russia.

The international community have experienced such invasions before as follows: -

6
1. Iraq's Invasion of Kuwait (1990): This invasion led to the Gulf War and was

condemned by the United Nations, resulting in a coalition of countries intervening to

restore Kuwait's sovereignty using the US led army. Iraq advanced security threat as a

reason for the invasion. The United Nations Security Council passed several resolutions

demanding Iraq's withdrawal and ultimately authorized military action to restore Kuwait's

sovereignty. This case reinforced the principle that states must respect the territorial

integrity of other nations and highlighted the role of international organizations in

maintaining peace and security.

2. Turkey's Invasion of Cyprus (1974): Following a coup d'état in Cyprus, Turkey

invaded the island, leading to a long-standing division between the northern Turkish

Republic of Northern Cyprus and the southern Republic of Cyprus. Turkey's military

intervention in Cyprus was justified by Ankara as a peace operation to protect the Turkish

Cypriot population following a coup that aimed to unite Cyprus with Greece. However,

this action raised questions about the legality of unilateral military interventions and the

principle of self-determination. The ongoing division of Cyprus illustrates the

complexities of international law regarding intervention and the rights of ethnic groups

within a state.

3. Georgia's Conflict with Russia (2008): This conflict involved Russia's military

intervention in Georgia, particularly in the regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which

Russia later recognized as independent states. The conflict over South Ossetia and

Abkhazia involved issues of territorial integrity and the right to self-determination.

Russia's recognition of these regions as independent states after the war was controversial

and challenged the principle of sovereignty. This situation highlighted the tension

7
 between national borders and ethnic claims, as well as the role of great powers in regional

conflicts.

4. The U.S. Invasion of Iraq (2003): This controversial invasion was justified by the U.S.

government on the grounds of eliminating weapons of mass destruction, although no such

weapons were found. The U.S. invasion was justified on the grounds of eliminating

weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and promoting democracy. However, the lack of a

clear UN mandate and the subsequent failure to find WMDs raised significant legal and

ethical questions. This case emphasized the principle of collective security and the need

for multilateral approval for military action and the consequences of preemptive strikes.

5. Ukraine v. Russian Federation (ICJ, 2017): Ukraine filed a case against Russia at the

International Court of Justice (ICJ) alleging violations of the International Convention for

the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and the International Convention on the

Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Ukraine alleged that Russia was

financing terrorism in Crimea and Mejilis but there was no proof. The ICJ ruled that it

had jurisdiction to hear the case but Ukraine failed to prove Russia’s support to terrorism

in Ukraine.

6. Russia v. Ukraine (ICJ, 2020): In a separate case, Russia brought a counterclaim against

Ukraine at the ICJ, alleging that Ukraine was financing terrorism. The court dismissed

Russia's claims, stating that it did not find sufficient evidence to support the allegations,

reinforcing Ukraine's position in the ongoing conflict.

7. Ukraine v. Russia (ECHR, 2020): The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)

examined Ukraine's claims against Russia regarding human rights violations in Crimea

and Eastern Ukraine. The court found that Russia had effective control over Crimea and

8
 was responsible for violations of the European Convention on Human Rights, including

the right to life and prohibition of torture.

8. Ukraine v. Russia (ECHR, 2021): The ECHR ruled on a case concerning the downing

of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17, which was shot down over Eastern Ukraine in 2014.

The court held that Russia was responsible for the actions of the separatists and ordered

Russia to pay compensation to the victims' families, emphasizing the need for

accountability in international conflicts.

9. International Criminal Court (ICC) Investigations (2022): Following the escalation of

the conflict in 2022, the ICC announced investigations into potential war crimes

committed during the Russia-Ukraine war. This includes examining attacks on civilians

and the use of prohibited weapons. The ICC's involvement highlights the international

community's commitment to addressing war crimes and ensuring justice.

The international community should reinvest in norms of territorial integrity and sovereignty

through international law, even at the occasional expense of humanitarian objectives (which

should be pursued vigorously through other avenues). The work of the United Nations should

focus on interstate peace and territorial integrity. And the international community should think

of new approaches to ensuring peace among the world’s most powerful countries. Safeguarding

against interstate war is itself an enormous task for international law and international

institutions, as the current events in Russia Ukraine demonstrate.