3 ms·

I'm not saying you're wrong but I'm wondering. What actual law, that they recognize, are they breaking? They don't recognize the ICC, they didn't appear at the

I'm not saying you're wrong but I'm wondering. What actual law, that they recognize, are they breaking? They don't recognize the ICC, they didn't appear at the ICJ, what's the legal recourse here? Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter says "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State" but is that enforceable?

javajosh 5y ago
You quoted the law they are breaking, then you moved the goal-post to include enforcability. That is dishonest and wrong, and I think you should delete your comment.
- barbazoo 5y ago
  Where is that law enforced is all I'm asking.
  - adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
    here. international laws are enforced by the actions of other governments.
Ekaros 5y ago
Clearly it is not enforced, which tells everything about UN...
asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to draw here. Obviously the Russians do not recognize any law that would prevent them from invading Ukraine. If they did, they would not be invading Ukraine. The invasion is illegal whether or not they recognize the laws that render it illegal. With respect to the UN charter, it's enforceable in the sense that any international regulation is: if you care enough you can get your guns and shoot the other guy if he doesn't follow the regulation. But otherwise, no.
- barbazoo 5y ago
  I'm not drawing anything here. I'm just genuinely curious how international relations work in a case like this where one guys just invades other countries. The reaction I'm getting here is weird, as if my asking that question somehow makes me sympathize with that guy? Not at all, I just need to know how our world works so I understand what's going in. The comment I was responding to was claiming they were breaking international law and my hope was that there is an avenue to enforce that in the long term.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
    Guns are the only mechanism to enforce laws affecting sovereigns. Actually, to a first approximation, force and power underlie all laws, not just international ones. Ultima ratio regum. The final authority is physical or economic compulsion.
  - DocTomoe 5y ago
    > I'm just genuinely curious how international relations work in a case like this where one guys just invades other countries. The lawyers answer is relevant here: It depends. Is the illegal attacker the US or a major NATO partner? Nothing much happens. Is it an attack between third-world-countries? Noone really cares. Is the attacker a major opponent of "the West"? Well, we're seeing this play out right now.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter says "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State" but is that enforceable? Yes, ultimately by states taking action under Article 51 of the Charter, if all else fails. EDIT: But, while the Security Council veto Russia wields can block the main UN enforcement mechanism, there has been a General Assembly fallback since 1950 via the “Uniting for Peace” process; while the UNGA has acted using this process already in the crisis without explicitly calling for enforcement action, there is nothing preventing it from revisiting it with stronger terms.
- barbazoo 5y ago
  Thank you. It does sound like this is dependent on the security council which Russia is a permanent member of, able to veto anything basically. What a messed up situation.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    Neither independent Article 51 action by states nor action called by the General Assembly under Uniting for Peace are dependent on Security Council action (in fact, both are dependent, legally, on Security Council inaction on the covered matter, which is all a veto power can guarantee.)
danbruc 5y ago
It is enforceable, see especially articles 41 and 42. With the caveat of the veto power of the five permanent members. Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression Article 39 The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security. Article 40 In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures. Article 41 The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations. Article 42 Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
- barbazoo 5y ago
  Thank you! That would only work though if this affected a non-member or non-permanent member of the security council, given that permanent members have veto power.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    That problem was noted during the pendency of the crisis that became the Korean War; while UN action there was facilitated by Soviet absence from the relevant Security Council session, it was realize that that wasn't a reliable safeguard against deadlock in important situations, hence, notwithstanding the Security Council’s primary role in international peace and security, the UN General Assemyin 1950 adopted a framework for it to deal with such issues when the primary organ was incapable due to disunity, via the “Uniting for Peace” process.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
miken123 5y ago
> What actual law, that they recognize, are they breaking? The current ICJ court case is about the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which was signed and ratified by both parties. If that is proven, that is the law they are breaking.

javajosh 5y ago

You quoted the law they are breaking, then you moved the goal-post to include enforcability. That is dishonest and wrong, and I think you should delete your comment.

barbazoo 5y ago
Where is that law enforced is all I'm asking.
- adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
  here. international laws are enforced by the actions of other governments.

Ekaros 5y ago

Clearly it is not enforced, which tells everything about UN...

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago

I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to draw here. Obviously the Russians do not recognize any law that would prevent them from invading Ukraine. If they did, they would not be invading Ukraine. The invasion is illegal whether or not they recognize the laws that render it illegal. With respect to the UN charter, it's enforceable in the sense that any international regulation is: if you care enough you can get your guns and shoot the other guy if he doesn't follow the regulation. But otherwise, no.

barbazoo 5y ago
I'm not drawing anything here. I'm just genuinely curious how international relations work in a case like this where one guys just invades other countries. The reaction I'm getting here is weird, as if my asking that question somehow makes me sympathize with that guy? Not at all, I just need to know how our world works so I understand what's going in. The comment I was responding to was claiming they were breaking international law and my hope was that there is an avenue to enforce that in the long term.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  Guns are the only mechanism to enforce laws affecting sovereigns. Actually, to a first approximation, force and power underlie all laws, not just international ones. Ultima ratio regum. The final authority is physical or economic compulsion.
- DocTomoe 5y ago
  > I'm just genuinely curious how international relations work in a case like this where one guys just invades other countries. The lawyers answer is relevant here: It depends. Is the illegal attacker the US or a major NATO partner? Nothing much happens. Is it an attack between third-world-countries? Noone really cares. Is the attacker a major opponent of "the West"? Well, we're seeing this play out right now.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter says "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State" but is that enforceable? Yes, ultimately by states taking action under Article 51 of the Charter, if all else fails. EDIT: But, while the Security Council veto Russia wields can block the main UN enforcement mechanism, there has been a General Assembly fallback since 1950 via the “Uniting for Peace” process; while the UNGA has acted using this process already in the crisis without explicitly calling for enforcement action, there is nothing preventing it from revisiting it with stronger terms.

barbazoo 5y ago
Thank you. It does sound like this is dependent on the security council which Russia is a permanent member of, able to veto anything basically. What a messed up situation.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  Neither independent Article 51 action by states nor action called by the General Assembly under Uniting for Peace are dependent on Security Council action (in fact, both are dependent, legally, on Security Council inaction on the covered matter, which is all a veto power can guarantee.)

danbruc 5y ago

It is enforceable, see especially articles 41 and 42. With the caveat of the veto power of the five permanent members. Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression Article 39 The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security. Article 40 In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for in Article 39, call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned. The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional measures. Article 41 The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations. Article 42 Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

barbazoo 5y ago
Thank you! That would only work though if this affected a non-member or non-permanent member of the security council, given that permanent members have veto power.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  That problem was noted during the pendency of the crisis that became the Korean War; while UN action there was facilitated by Soviet absence from the relevant Security Council session, it was realize that that wasn't a reliable safeguard against deadlock in important situations, hence, notwithstanding the Security Council’s primary role in international peace and security, the UN General Assemyin 1950 adopted a framework for it to deal with such issues when the primary organ was incapable due to disunity, via the “Uniting for Peace” process.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

miken123 5y ago

> What actual law, that they recognize, are they breaking? The current ICJ court case is about the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which was signed and ratified by both parties. If that is proven, that is the law they are breaking.