Russia and the Precedent Problem
09/25/14
Nikolas K. Gvosdev
International Law, Foreign Policy, The Presidency, Russia, United States
"As Moscow complains about American unilateralism, Putin finds that he is more than happy to take the position that he too can interpret international law to his own liking."
One
constant of Russian diplomacy in the last several years has been for
Moscow to vociferously criticize U.S. actions that go against Russia’s
preferences, particularly those that represent any erosion of the
Westphalian ideal of state sovereignty, as violations of international
law—and then to claim an American precedent when it becomes convenient
for Russia to similarly breach those principles. When Washington claimed
a right to deploy military force against another sovereign state
without the sanction of the United Nations Security Council, justified
armed action on the basis of a “right to protect” or recognized a
unilateral declaration of independence, Russia led the chorus of
disapproval from the stalwart defenders of state sovereignty and
territorial integrity (especially the rising and resurgent powers of the
global south and east, like India, China and Brazil). The NATO
intervention against Serbia over Kosovo in 1999 (without the blessing of
the United Nations) and the subsequent recognition of an independent
Kosovo (despite an explicit UN Security Council resolution calling for
the province to enjoy maximal autonomy within the bounds of a Serbian
state, and in the absence of Belgrade’s consent), initially condemned by
Russia, were then cited as precedents to justify Russian military
action in Georgia in 2008, and then to recognize the self-declared independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
A
similar parallelism can be seen between Syria and Ukraine. Russia has
strongly condemned efforts by Western states to aid the opposition
seeking to overthrow the government of Bashar al-Assad as violations of
Syrian sovereignty and criticized efforts by Washington and its allies
in the Persian Gulf to provide assistance to rebel organizations. But
when the government of Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych was
deposed, hours after a power-sharing and transition agreement was
reached between Yanukovych and the opposition in the presence of a
European Union delegation, Moscow was quick to adopt the same language
used by Washington to describe the Assad regime: an illegitimate
government holding no mandate to rule, and defending the right of an
opposition to challenge the subsequent “junta” by force of arms if
necessary to secure their rights.
Read full articlehttp://nationalinterest.org/feature/russia-the-precedent-problem-11349
No comments:
Post a Comment