Michael stavrinos | professor of international law, university of nicosia
International law is the set of rules, norms, principles, and standards generally recognized as binding between states. It establishes normative guidelines and a common conceptual legal and ethical framework for states across a broad range of domains, including war, diplomacy, and human rights. At its core, International Law aims to promote the practice of stable, consistent, and organised international relations.
Following Hugo Grotius’ visionary conceptualisation of inter-state obligatory regulation, the contemporary international community strives toward the mandatory enforcement of the rules, prescribing state interactions in an orderly manner. If International Law were not respected, international anarchy would prevail, resembling the international community’s order in the state of nature, where the right to rule inheres to strength alone.
International Law and the Situation in Ukraine
The ongoing events in Ukraine, including the consequential human and material losses, reflect the inability of the current international judicial system to fulfil its purpose. The same applies to the ongoing human tragedy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The international community must respond to this weakness by demanding an accurate diagnosis of the problem and corrective proposals in response, aiming to strengthen International Law as a preventative system against emerging global catastrophes.
One may argue that it is the stance of the International Community itself which has permitted and promoted unacceptable inter-state behaviour. The strongest states have the power to impose their will on the weakest. However, International Law limits inter-state behaviour, prohibiting the use of force, invasions, and occupations of a third country’s territory, limiting thus, the abuse of power in international relations.
International Organizations, primarily the UN, bear the paramount responsibility to preserve peace and regulate the conduct of war. Unfortunately, the political nature of its decision making, instantiated most directly by the veto afforded to the Permanent Members of its Security Council, often prohibits the enforcement of International Law. Only a uniform and objective condemnation of every violation of International Law could have prevented today’s dramatic events in Ukraine and similar conflicts.
Ukraine compared with Cyprus
The Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974, and the subsequent occupation of one-third of the nation's territory, continuing to this day, parallels the current events in Ukraine. Türkiye had, through its official undertaking in the form of an internationally binding Treaty, the obligation to guarantee and defend the independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus. Türkiye’s pretext to “intervene” was to restore legal order, (as officially stated by Türkiye in front of the UN General Assembly in 1974). However, the catalytic question which Turkey and the international community have failed to respond to is: Why is Türkiye still occupying, after 50 years, with 40,000 soldiers and the presence of NATO weapons, one-third of Cyprus, when legal order was reestablished only seven days after the military coup against the elected President? According to the Cypriot Constitution, the replacement of the Republican President with the Parliamentary President, constitutional order was reinstated.
Due to political considerations, the US, UK, Soviet Union, and NATO, consented to Türkiye’s invasion and subsequent violations of International Law. The UN, instead of clearly condemning an invasion and occupation of one of its sovereign member states by another, opted for mild language, due again to the relevant stance of the aforementioned Permanent Members. It is worth underlining at this point, that the UK too was a guarantor of Cypriot independence and has forsaken its international obligations. Germany also bears substantial responsibility, with German-made tanks playing a crucial role in executing the invasion and maintaining the occupation of Cyprus’ territory.
Cyprus, despite being a victim of invasion and occupation, has faced an arms embargo itself, due to its “de facto” position in a ‘war situation’ - a stark contrast to Türkiye - which only faced a temporary arms embargo imposed by the American Congress. When one considers this historical context, the contradictory nature of States’ behaviour, such as that of the United Kingdom, the United States, and Germany, becomes evident. One questions how the newly elected German Chancellor could reconcile his adamant stance against the occupation of Ukraine - contributing to the urgent and unprecedented strengthening of the Germany military - when his first official visit abroad involved cordial exchanges with Türkiye (Hurriet Daily News, March 9, 2022.)
Today, Türkiye is the only state which consistently employs threats of force in its official inter-state relations with Greece, in violation of the mandatory provisions of the UN Charter, without the international community, and in disregard of condemnations by the UN itself! If one considers the behaviour of various states concerning the case of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, it is natural to wonder why the very same actors react with such an outcry against the occupation of Ukraine. Perhaps the biggest paradox is Türkiye’s condemnation of the Russian invasion while pretending that she can play a reconciliatory role in Eastern Europe when she is liable for the very same international crime.
The recipe for avoiding illegal use of force
The International Community needs urgently new and strict rules of behaviour:
The UN must abolish the veto in cases where a Permanent Member of its Security Council is adjudicated to be directly or indirectly involved in a crime of aggression.
Every case of foreign invasion and occupation ought to be condemned and overturned, retrospectively.
The UN’s relevant Resolutions must be enforced by strict sanctions and, subsequently, by the implementation of Chapter 7 of the Charter, (that is the use of military and nonmilitary action by the Security Council, to restore international peace and security), in cases where the aggressor continues disregarding the International Community’s verdict, within a short period.
Today’s dramatic events exhibit the international order’s inability to cope with the Crime of Aggression effectively. If the necessary adaptations are not implemented, before too long, a Third World War could reach our doors. The International Community bears critical responsibility for taking the right measures to avoid global disaster. We must act now.
