IR/ Intl law: war and collective security approaches (Essay Sample)

Student’s Name Professor’s Name Course Date International Relations: War and Collective Security Approaches A Brief Description of the Case In 1991, Ukraine’s borders were created following the collapse of the Soviet Union. As a result, Crimea became one of the Autonomous Republic that was established within Ukraine. Two decades down the road (in 2014), the world witnessed Russia, one of the powerful countries on earth interfering with borders of Ukraine by invading Crimea. According to Sala (4), the Russian government was motivated by the violence in Ukraine, especially when President Yanukovych declined the signing of the agreement with the EU, which was about trade and political relations. Consequently, this created tension in the country because of protests that led to political instability. As Council on Foreign Relations (2014) explains, the situation became worse when Russia's Council gave President Putin green light to use force in Ukraine. In fact, the intervention of Russia (use of force) in Ukraine led to the de facto annexation of Crimea to Russia. However, various international organizations and governments expressed their concern regarding the actions of Russia. On the same note, the international community believed that Russia's actions were act of aggression against Ukraine. A wide range of research indicates that aggression is one of the actions that portray the use of force that threatens the international peace and security. Nonetheless, this remains debatable since there is no clear scale to measure violence in Russia's actions. Besides, Russia provided several legal grounds in a bid to justify its use of force in occupying Crimea. In this case, it is from this background that the study focuses on legal arguments related to the use of force by Russia in Crimean case, its justifications based on international law and critiques. Government's (Russia) Justification for the Use of Force When it comes to protecting both national and international interest, countries are required to follow principles of "equal sovereignty." According to the United Nations Report on Ukraine (2), the use of force is prohibited in one way or the other unless the country is in these situations. The state is allowed to use force in self-defense or if it gets approval from the Security Council. However, the Council is required to approve the use of force if there is a threat to peace and security or an act of aggression. Under the United Nations Charter, Article (51), all countries or states have the inherent rights that allow them to protect their interest, and self-defense. In the Article (42) of the same Charter, UN Security Council has the rights to approve any state to use force as a collective measure. More so, the United Nations Charter gives various mechanisms that can be used to impose sanctions against countries that use force to threaten peace and security of other nations (UN Charter). As an act of self-defense, states are allowed to use force in a bid to maintain peace and security. According to Euan (12), the right to self-defense originates from the customary international law that supports every state. In relation to traditional or customary international law, states are allowed to use for in the process of defending themselves and their citizens. However, it is also indicated that if a state uses force to exercise its rights to self-defense, it is as well required to submit a report to the United Nations Security Council for evaluation. Failure to acknowledge this procedure, the aspect of self-defense can be suspended by the UN under the Article (42). Russia used Force with Consent of the Ukraine Russia provided its legal grounds for using force based on the fact that United Nations Security Council encouraged President Putin to use armed forces of the Russian Federation in the process of re-establishing peace and order, stability and the rule of law in Ukraine. According to Euan (30), the request was in the letter written by ousted President of Ukraine on 1st of March 2014. In relation to International Law Commission, intervention with force upon request by another state is lawful. Interestingly, Russia justified its intervention to annexing Crimea on the grounds of humanitarian actions. For example, Russia believed that the West was backing the interim government of Ukraine against them. Since Crimea is occupied by many Russian citizens, the state claimed that it used forces to save its citizens in Crimea because it was exposed to other foreign intervention. Under the United Nations Charter, Article (51), there are various aspects that explain specific situations where a state can use force. Self Determination As one of Russia's legal justification, the use of force aimed at assisting people in Crimea to gain or achieve self-determination. The concept of self-determination was integrated into the United National Charter, especially when most of the countries were getting their independence. For example, the Article (1) of the International Covenant o Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) highlight that all people have the right of self-determination. In this case, Russian was assisting people in Crimea to achieve their right to self-determination. Protecting Russian Nationals in Crimea As Lavrov (Voice of America News, March 3rd, 2014) speculates, President Putin used this justification while requesting the Russia's Upper House of Parliament to allow the use of force with the aim of protecting their citizens in Crimea. In this case, it is not surprising that the parliament approved President's request. More so, Euan (32) explains that the concept of protecting citizens abroad started after the First World War, and it reached the level of international law in 1954. However, this concept is still debatable because a wide range of research indicates that the use of force to protect nationals abroad contradicts with other peace and security laws. For example, the use of force by the state to protect its citizens abroad must be justified in various ways. One of the ways is that citizens abroad must be under threats of violence. The Extent the Government's Argument has been Accepted or Criticized According to Wisehart (47), Russia's actions that led to the annexation of Crimea remains illegal despite the justifications. For example, Russia violated almost all the core principles of international law and regional agreements. Besides, Russia continued to accept Mr. Yanukovych and considered the new government of Ukraine as illegitimate even if it was under the country's Constitution. In this case, this suspends the claims that Russia used force with the consent of Ukraine. However, the use of force based on the valid consent of Ukraine could have been accepted for President Putin, only if the request was made by a legitimate government (Constitution of Ukraine). According to the Constitution of Ukraine, Prime Minister of Crimea was not in legal position to send assistance requests from President Putin of Russia to use force. While reflecting on such background and legal analysis, Russia's use of force is not justified in one way or the other. In other words, Russia used force unlawfully since there is no sufficient evidence to back up its claims. Furthermore, research shows that justifications provided by Russia under the concept of self-determination are invalid since people of Crimea were exercising the same rights internally. Before the invention, Crimea has a status of Autonomous Republic within Ukraine, and this is clearly highlighted by the Ukraine Constitution. More so, Russian citizens abroad were represented in the Parliament, and they were not under threats. In this case, Russia's claims lack substantial evidence to support its use of force (Antonello 9). Finally, Russian use of force in Ukraine cannot be justified under the concept of protecting its citizens abroad. The reason is that Russia did not provide evidence that its citizens in Crimea were under threat or injured. In fact, UN rejected Russia's claims because it did not satisfy set criteria to use force. Therefore, it is worth mentioning that Russia cannot justify the aspect of protection of citizens in Crimea within Article (51) of the United Nations Charter. Russia's Justification about its International Law Approach While reflecting on various justification provided by Russia in relation to the use of force in Ukraine, there are various aspects revealed about the country's international law approach. For example, Russia does not respect most of the international treaties and agreements, but rather believe in effective control of power (Antonello 23). In this case, Russian wanted to capture Crimea from Ukraine by all means necessary despite the sanctions. In other words, it is not surprising that Russia's actions that involved use of force were in contradictions to United Nations Charter including Articles 2(7). On the same not, it is revealed that the state cannot easily justify its use of force despite the genuine reasons. Russia presented a wide range of legal justifications, but the state had no evidence to back them up. In this perspective, there is no doubt that Russia does not take international law seriously despite the sanctions imposed on it in one way or the other. More so, Russia's actions to intervene in Ukraine's politics reveal two more aspects. First, it illustrates that Russia has different understanding of indivisibility when it comes to Europeans politics and general security (McMahon 32). In this case, this can be seen in a way that Russia did not respect the agreements, which are considered to be politically and legally binding. Second, Russia's actions reveal its belief in the current Euro-Atlantic security structure in one way or the other. For example, there is no doubt that this structure is incapable of effectively addressing most of the existing international political conflicts. Noneth...