Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban on Saturday accused Ukraine and people in Brussels of meddling into Hungarian domestic elections and claimed that Kyiv was using oil access as a way to gain political favor. He also stated that Ukrainian leaders are motivated to extend the war due to the fact that global aid may reduce as soon as the conflict is over. These are some of the political statements that refer to important legal principles. Arguments of electoral interference apply to the doctrine of non-intervention that forms the foundation of customary international law that forbids the interference in internal affairs of sovereign states through coercion. Meanwhile, these assertions cannot gain legal force without having a plausible substantiation.
On Monday, the European Union leaders failed to approve another sanctions package against Russia after Hungary protested against it. The absence of a consensus is an indication of unanimity mandate incorporated in the elements of Common Foreign and Security Policy of the EU. Sanctions, as a tool of foreign policy, tend to be understood as legalized retaliation of wrongdoings by international actors. In countermeasures, according to the law of state responsibility, it should be equal and meant to bring about compliance with international obligations. The controversy in the EU does not disregard the legal basis of sanctions but underscores the political sophistication of making collective decisions in supranational institutions.
Ukraine still enjoys massive support of the Western states even after the sanction has stalled. A few members of the NATO had recently sanctioned increases in military budgets. Though, as an organization, NATO has not been engaged in the conflict, individual member states have been offering military aid to Ukraine. This help is normally justified by the Article 51 of the UN Charter which acknowledges the natural right of individual and collective self-defense in case of an armed attack. Third states can lawfully offer military assistance when a state is in the attack, and its assistance does not violate the ban of the use of force, in advance of becoming co-belligerent under the international humanitarian law.
In Russia, there was Monday, the Defender of the Fatherland Day, which is celebrated in honor of Russian soldiers who died in the past wars, and in the Ukrainian war. President Vladimir Putin was able to meet widows of Russian troops killed in Ukraine and guaranteed them that the state would continue to support them. Military actions are often defined through national commemorations as sacrifices and patriotic duty. Nevertheless, the objective legal definition of a conflict is not affected by domestic accounts. Whether it is called a special military operation or a defensive struggle, the determination of the protection of the international law lies not on words but in actions.
In a Monday statement, the European Union foreign policy head Kaja Kallas pointed out that the pressure on Russia should be sustained in order to achieve meaningful peace. As she pointed out, calls to negotiate are usually centered on Ukraine, but military actions of Russia are the main obstacle to the resolution of the conflict. Legally, negotiations should be conducted with regard to the basic rules, such as the territorial integrity and the political independence. Peace settlements put in place in circumstances of unlawful use of force may pose a threat of violating peremptory norms, especially when they authorize the acquisition of territory through aggression.
It is against this background that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in an interview with the BBC published Monday blamed President Putin in staging what he termed as a third world war. His words were made two days before the fourth anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. According to Zelenskyy, it would be an international victory to ensure that Russia did not occupy Ukraine, and the ambition of Moscow would not end at Ukrainian borders.
In legal terms, the issue of the 2022 invasion is a major threat to the international order after World War II. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter disallows any deterrence or employment of force to violate the territorial integrity or political autonomy of any state. In case the invasion can be considered as aggression in terms of the international criminal law, it can imply personal criminal liability of the decision-makers. According to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the crime of aggression is explained in a manner which is quite similar to that of the UN General Assembly, which emphasizes the seriousness of such behavior.
The fact that Zelenskyy warns that the extension of expansionist interests is not limited to Ukraine is indicative of a larger issue regarding the undermining of collective security structures. The ban on aggression is also generally considered to be a jus cogens norm, and thus it cannot be derogated. To permit a process of territorial conquest by use of force would not only be destabilizing in the region, but also it will be contrary to the normative bases of international law.
All combined, the stalling sanctions argument in the EU, the defense budget increases in NATO, the commemorative events in Russia, and the harsh accusations of Zelenskyy depict how law and geopolitics interact with each other. Every actor presents its role in the legal discourse, be it in the form of sovereignty, self-defense, countermeasures or non-intervention. In the end, the longevity of the international legal order will lie in the occurrence or infrequence with which these principles are observed or selectively practiced during the time of crisis.