@@lurau6319 Yes, different comment I guess. Laws need enforcing. Otherwise why write @ll those words down? Countries pick and choose what Laws they'll have, when they'll enforce them and with whom. Depending on circumstances and fortune. The US is against all kinds of actions on the international stage, then they do the same things , the things they say they are against. Say one thing...do another.
Here in Ukraine the UN's deep concern had become a running joke, but alas, we don't have any other international law system. Thanks for taking time to explain at least a part of the whole ordeal.
There in Ukraine you were arming up to directly attack Russia, we know this because Poroshenko, Hollande and Merkel all admittted it earlier this year.
From my time taking international law courses in law school I learned that international law is primarily a set of fluid guidelines that are only meaningful when backed by real military and economic power. The few times when international law tried to break free from this countries just ignored it.
@@corruptangel6793 Pretty much. It's a strong suggestion, with consequences for violating it. Usually. It's not just rogue nations like Russia that have done it; the United States did the same with the Iraq War, and as previously mentioned, Nicaragua.
Putin doesn't care about any laws. He follows none. He's a white supremacist mass murderer, and a despot who imprisons, tortures, and murders anyone who criticizes the Russian government. He's a pathetic coward just like the Republicans who support him and have openly praised his invasion while blaming Biden for it.
1:40 - Chapter 1 - Background to conflict 4:20 - Chapter 2 - International law explained 6:50 - Chapter 3 - Treaties 8:25 - Chapter 4 - General principles of civilized nations 9:15 - Chapter 5 - Other sources of law 9:35 - Chapter 6 - What about the UN ? 10:20 - Chapter 7 - What about the security council ? 12:35 - Chapter 8 - Use of force under international law 13:00 - Chapter 9 - Exceptions 14:30 - Chapter 10 - Self defence 15:35 - Chapter 11 - Is the war in Ukraine illegal under international war ? 18:25 - End roll ads
Having somebody who actually knows what they're talking explain situations and laws in a way that is easy to understand and often entertaining is a recouce I'm very glad we have. Jeep up the good work man.
The EU is an interesting experiment in actual, manifest international law, where 27 countries suborn parts of their national self-rule to a extranational organization. Especially the EEA members (Norway, Iceland, Lichtenstein) are interesting because they have a rubber-stamp agreement where they approve every legislation coming in from the EU, without actually being members with voting rights. I don't know if the African Union is built on the same model, but it is an interesting exception to the general rule that international obligations are only binding as long as A) the country in question agrees, or B) the rest of the countries gang up to enforce it.
To be fair, for the system in the EU to even work there are so many asterisks in their documents that they outnumber the letters. My home country of Sweden isn't following a wide array of EU law, such as animal welfare, tobacco usage, logging industry and currency just to name a few. This is what I think is the primary problem/challenge with the EU, and why many people grumble over legislators in brussels deciding over matters they don't understand, myself included.
When it was a member, the UK had a standing veto against EU legislation, allowing it to decline to adopt any passed law which it felt contradicted UK law or worked against the interests of the UK. They still have issues with quite a few central/Eastern European nations though, in that they have cultural norms (and laws supporting/prohibiting them) which are in direct conflict with some EU laws, and some governments have been refusing to adopt the EU laws over their own The simple fact is that, unlike somewhere like the US, the wide expanse of Europe was not gradually settled/colonised by one or two key sociocultural groups gradually spreading west. That allowed the US to be constructed of states which held similar cultural beliefs. In Europe, much like the original Native American tribes, the population started as multiple diverse clans (“nations”) which grew independently with their own customs until they agreed borders and territories as separate states. Over such a large area, the range of cultures and customs differed wildly. For example, there are customs in Spain which aren’t matched in Switzerland, and both have customs different to those in Turkey or Sweden. This means that it is nearly impossible to craft a collection of laws which are the same across all the states. Sooner or later, some states will raise objections as they contradict their laws or beliefs.
I mean, if one of the members of the EU decides that it no longer wants to follow the laws of the EU and doesn't care about any of the possible economic repercutions (such as sanctions or losing it's membership) the only real way the other members of the EU have to enforce their will is by overt military force. There is a reason why force is called the ultimate authority.
@@garibaldilebeau there's more cultural homogeneity in Europe than you believe. All christian nations and all liberal democracies, and many countries share a lot in terms of culture, like the romance coubtries and the germanic ones. Besides, Switzerland has done just that for centuries, the country is made out of 4 different ethnicities, french, italian, german and romansch. Seriously, tge role model for the EU is located right at its center.
International law is more down the line of "If I don't do it, then I can expect you not to do it either". So more like a code of conduct or honor, which serves as common ground the interact with other countries without needing to fear extremely crazy things happenening
@@handsoftheSinner Umm "If I don't do it, then I can expect you not to do it either" - The first thing that comes to mind in this context is 2003 Iraq invasion. And then the multitude of times NATO breached the sovereignty of many, many countries.
@@handsoftheSinner Yeah I probably hit the wrong 'Reply' button. It's not totally irrelevant though. George Bush was the first nutjob in the chat. Putin is just trying to imitate him.
The coherent theme of most legal analysis content I watch to listen to seems to be, "If you did it, straight to jail. But when someone powerful does it, probably not."
The problem is not "is he breaking the law", but "can we actually make that mean something"? It's not like we can just send "international cops" to Moscow and arrest Putin.
true, when USA attack Iraq, there are millions of protestors and UN declared it illegal, but USA stll go thru with it anyway. They didnt get any repercussions for it despite unable to prove Al-Qaeda links and the existence of nuclear weapons development
Really, whomever came up with the Security Council rules should have included a stipulation that a country who is both a permanent member and a belligerent in a conflict cannot take part in the vote. Yes I would have this apply to the United States and their forever wars as I would the current Soviet Un- I mean Russia.
If that were the case, the USSR would never have joined the UN. The other four Permanent Council Members were the USA, France, the UK, and Nationalist China. If they were able to enforce international law against the USSR with impunity, the UN would've been a free world-only organization, which defeats its purpose as an international forum for diplomacy.
@@adamvale945 A international forum for diplomacy is almost as pointless if some of the main offenders are given the power to effectively ignore rules.
@@darthplagueis13 It's quite useful for small nations, which otherwise would rarely get their issues discussed at all. People easily forget, but before the UN diplomacy between multiple nations was exceedingly rare. Without international organizations like the UN, corralling the nations of the world to get the number of sanctions leveled against Russia we've seen recently would've been impossible.
thing is... there IS a rule like that. A country is obliged to abstain on any dispute they're a party to, so in principle Russia's veto should have been counted as an abstention, though in practice that rule is never enforced.
It's actually not that hard-people often miss the fact that "dead language" doesn't mean "not spoken anymore", it means "not spoken _natively_ anymore". There still many people speaking some degree of Latin, and some are even fluent in it-and same for a few others (Ancient Greek, Sanskrit come to mind)
Historically speaking, the real use of international law is resolving the end of wars rather than outlaw it. Sure, you can make war illegal, but presumably if a country is doing a big invade, then they don't care about the surrounding international law. When the war is over, though, it allows the winners and losers to be prosecuted for their actions by the international community with a decent framework to ensure an aproximately just level of sanctions and terms.
Yeah idk, its arguable that the point is to oppress a certain nation or group of people. Plenty of examples where an international committee pretends to do something out of a bleeding heart but is actually crippling an enemy of the state's economy.
@@alalala132whyisthishandletaken oh yeah, there's plenty of that to. The borders of the middle east being a prime example. Iraq is basically indefensible and has a water supply at the whims of its neighbors further northwest. Not to mention the dozen mile coastline that renders it basically landlocked and incapable of being a naval power. The result means they are garunteed to go to war periodically for the sake of survival.
Appreciating this deep dive focus on the question, "What is International Law?" And coming to the grim result that the answer is, "Only as powerful as its enforcement."
The bigger issue is that international law is a system of treaties that nations voluntarily agree to. There is no global authority that can enforce laws on entire nations against their will.
@@frownyclowny6955 What i consider incompetent Gunpowder-Nations: USA, China, Russia, North-Korea and now, just new to the Friends-Group, Afghanistan. Those are Gunpowder-Barrels that need to be stopped at all Price. So: Lets do nothing. I'm sure 'Some More News', the RUclipsr, will also agree. It's not like he and others have Improvement-Advice and such-and-such. But even ignoring him anyway: Lets do Nothing. Another N-Korea has literally just been founded and literal Barbarians rule over Afgahnistan now, so whatever.
i just realized watching this that the reason russia is investing so heavily in propaganda in india is because they currently have a seat on the security council and if they have india and china on their side it will make it much harder for them to be removed from it
"Can International Law Stop Putin's War on Ukraine" is a bit like saying "Can making theft illegal stop people from stealing things?" The answer is that it only STOPS people who are willing to follow the rules. The real question is if the perpetrator will actually be punished meaninfully. That isn't going to be very helpful for the people of Ukraine if it only happens after the fact.
Yea I was gonna post something like this. Putin doesn't seem to care at all about international law, despite him knowing he is violating it. Then on top of it, his army is committing war crimes in Ukraine, and still, he doesn't care.
The punishment is happening during the crime in this case, which weakens Russia's economy, thus indirectly weakening Russia's military. It's something.
@@jayc1139 Not only that but they have agreed to open up "civilian evacuation corridors" 3 times during negotiations and then Russian artillery have bombed them. Putin doesn't give a shit about laws.
wrote a 5 page paper on the russia ukraine tensions back in december 2021 and it STILL barely scratched the surface yall he’s not wrong when he says this issue is insanely complicated
it really isn't complicated. ukraine is under the control of a nazi puppet state, russia is liberating russian speaking territory and demilitarizing the fascist regime in ukraine that was installed by the west. if you support ukraine, you support imperialism and fascism. simple as that. you could def go into more detail, but that is more than enough of a factual understanding of the situation for the average non-statesman.
I had one as a high school student taking International Relations, and the textbook wasn’t even updated. This conflict is incredibly interesting and complicated, and watching it progress is both fascinating and worrying.
I never thought about whether a war was "legal" or not. I've always thought invading another sovereign country was not exactly legal, and definitely immoral.
the iraq war is one of the most important and intresting of why the un doesnt exactly work, the us made a claim that they had proof of the production of weapons of mass destruction in iraq (the proof turned out to be fake) and when the war ended they found no further proof that there were "weapons of mass destruction" the us called it "a big mistake" and there was no form action taken against the aggressors of the war
@@xristoskoumpourlis1614 I just found out that Yemen was the only country at the UN who voted against that War. I failed to note it at the time. ....... Anyway Yes you are right I think. Nato has the teeth that the UN should have had. but no nuclear diplomecy for UN.
@@vitkosbence3705 Well thematically i think i hear you but the history is not as speculative as you are describing quite. Wars of Aggression are technically illegal and the argument between nations specifically goes back to hitler and Poland, although the factors you are describing were and are at play. Wars of aggression were likewise rejected politically over the same events globally by 1955 and earlier by a few years for most of the world - this attitude was similar to the dramatically changed attitude of the masses of all countries towards trench warfare after WW1. nothing you say is wrong but there is a little less room to be speculative as the history is universally clear. Wars of Aggression got their bookmark in the legalese due to WW2. Many slimy workarounds have transpired since and I'm pretty sure only one African country and Yugoslavia and one more country (Africa i think but not sure atm) are the only countries to date to be prosecuted for war crimes. It's all slimy as heck and hypocritical but it is there. like the half thought out laws around hate speech that are half enforced or used against us - a good lawyer or a clear situation makes it workable, otherwise lies destroy most of what is real. Like Zelensky's lies about a no fly zone. he is selfish and reckless. Not that I'm cheering for the other side or anything. Russia is wrong, and Ukraine is acting a fool as well. it's all a mess. this ones about 'Nuclear diplomacy' as well. An even less stable situation that. fingers crossed they all stop purring gas on the fire.
I have great respect to both Ukrainian defenders and Russian anti-war protesters. Also great sympathy to Ukrainian civilians, and young Russian conscripts who were fooled to go to war. Best wishes from Finland.
Me too... I don't know if it's true, but I read that Russia uses conscription as a punishment, meaning some of those young soldiers might have been basically declared enemies of the state, forced into the military, and thrown into a dangerous situation as cannon fodder. It's beyond horrifying, and I hope they're given the chance to escape somehow.
@@solitarelee6200 That's really despicable and inhumane, and dare I say, ironically anti-Russian. My country has mandatory military conscription for 2 years, and I am horrified to learn that the front line soldiers are young men going through a phase, and made to lose their lives because of their leaders. My hearts go out to them, and I hope for an early ceasefire, so we can protect not just Ukrainians, but also Russians who suffer under a select few's madness.
@@Kirinboy39 Ukrainians don't want or need Russian protection. They need protection FROM Putin. Have you not noticed there isn't any footage of Russian soldier's being greeted like hero's? You've either been lied to by a crazy old dictator, QAnon or you're a troll.
I was watching this go down & was noting the similarities to the Russian invasion of Finland during WWII. I can only hope the world doesn't come out of this hating the Russian people. This war is just aweful from all angles. Distant Finnish myself. I hope one day to visit.
The three foundations of government: 1. Make rules. 2. Identify infractions of the rules. 3. Enforce the rules. Politicians deal with #1. Judges and lawyers deal with #2. The police deal with #3. How do you do that on an international scale? A lot of powerful nations dislike the idea of someone else messing with their nation.
@@JaharNarishma In theory, the enforcement side would come from the security council and from member nations donating troops to the cause. In practice, the veto power of the 5 permanent members makes them somewhat above the law, since they can prevent stuff they don't like. Having to rely on donated troops is also problematic since they end up in situations where nobody is willing to send enough to do any good.
@@randomstuff-qu7sh it's mostly "neutral" & "peaceful" countries that send their soldiers as peacekeeping forces. Well peaceful until some shit goes down domestically.
@@randomstuff-qu7sh Which is why the current version of the Security Council should be abolished. That's like having only a select few in a democracy allowed to vote and any of these elites able to veto a vote. Ridiculous and outdated.
UN: “Russia, you’re not on the security council, that seat was held by the Soviet Union which your no longer are” Russia: “we are the Soviet Union” UN: “I thought you guys broke up” Soviet Union: “that’s what we wanted you to think!”
I'd really like to see this discussed more, as the United States did something similar with France in order to avoid aiding the First French Republic in war. The argument was that the treaty was signed by King Louis and as the people had beheaded King Louis, the treaty no longer had any force.
I mean, Russia literally left the USSR-and wasn't even the last country to do so (Kazakhstan was), so... there's a argument to be had. But it's generally recognized that Russia succeeded the USSR, though I don't know if it's codified in any treaty.
I am from Russia and a lot of our people are terrified by this war. Feeling so helpless right now. Thank you for everyone who supporting Ukraine 🇺🇦 Слава Украине ❤️
I hope you know that we don't fault you, but rather your leaders who have created this situation. I hope that together, the world can work to create peace and stop wars altogether.
@@nicolovoci7265 I really don’t have good faith in Romania and Poland being so close to Ukraine if it was to fall. Past relationships with Russia just have never been good. I’m not from Russia but I know for a fact Ukraine would not be the only place they feel the need to de-naz
international law hasn't meant anything since the invasion of Iraq, forget enforcing it. Even recognising it has become a game of who has more supporters. The coalition of the willing could invade Turkmenistan tomorrow and virtually no one would give a damn.
Generally war crime conviction on senior leaders and political leaders will happen (if they do at all) after the conflict is over. Militaries will tend to prosecute their own personnel or captured fighters who have been determined to be unlawful combatants who violated the Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) as soon as they feel the need to prosecute is met.
honestly all laws can mean something, it is partially about enforcement but also partially about respecting said laws, perhaps you don't smoke a drug, not because you don't want to or are opposed to it, but simply because its illegal, even if the law is not well enforced it can still prevent people from doing such just by existing. the same can be said about countries, laws only work if countries choose to abide by them or they are enforced, one, the other or both need to work for laws to function, when both are lacking then the law is essentially words on a paper.
One of the best RUclips channels. I've been waiting to hear Devin's discussion of the Russia-Ukraine War, and when you notice his choice of tie you realize how much thought and effort he puts into his videos.
@@TimParker-Chambers You are aware that the tie is the embodiment of the suit's personality, right? The man gets to choose one thing about his outfit that isn't a standard suit, and he chose to send a message of support. Good enough for me, when compared to downbeats like you, trying to diminish goodness and empathy on sight.
Fun fact: the USA is the primary force to use its Navy to enforce the international Law of the Sea... despite being a signatory to the treaty who has never actually ratified it. We keep aircraft carrier groups capable of wiping out entire countries just outside the 12 nautical mile 'territorial waters' of China and Iran and somehow get upset when those countries 'buzz' our jets. Just imagine if Russia had a couple of warships or submarines even within 200 nautical miles of our shores... Oh right, you don't have to imagine because we already know what would happen from the 'Cuban' missile crisis. This is not in any way an excuse for Russia. They are still aggressors we must confront. This is only to point out the backfoot hypocrisy we are starting from.
I like the choice of tie. Keep it smooth, my good man. Real talk though, international law is a topic I've always wanted to get into, but it seems so "hand-wavy". Glad to see you're dipping into the subject.
As a Swiss, thank you for naming Switzerland AND Sweden. I'm sure this will confuse some people, but now they can learn, that we are two different countries :)
The problem with Russia assuming it’s role as a permanent member of the UN Security Council as a successor of the Soviet Union is that it was never voted on by the UN. Former Soviet nations that had declared independence after the dissolution of the Soviet Union had to reapply to UN under their new government as a “new” country. Russia was just given their spot without having to reapply as other nations were required to do. That’s the primary point of contention as to why Russia should be expelled from both the Security Council and the UN itself.
I feel like there's some sort of limitation to this line of argument. It's been almost 30 years since the fall of the USSR and they've been recognized as a member of the UN implicitly. It seems fishy and against the UN spirit to bring up a procedural hiccup now that it's convenient.
Thank you very much for taking this topic on, as you has taken on a number of serious legal topics LegalEagle. I appreciate the info very much for clarifying areas of this horrible war I had no real clue about. I also thank you for encouraging people to help Ukraine on some level with the browser add on. You are a great tribute to lawyers everywhere!
People only have nukes because a dude from New Zealand split the atom believing it was a step towards renewable energy, and people immediately weaponized it, pissing on his grave
@@michaelpettersson4919 obviously - the difference being that with most laws, there’s some sort of established authority and set punishments, where with international laws the only recourse is either sanctions or war, both of which have consequences for the country trying to enforce, too.
I mean, even if it is illegal… is it really going to stop him? If a law is impossible to enforce, is it even a law? edit: a lot of you guys are missing the point First of all, prevention and prosecution count as enforcement, so examples of mass shootings and using force to break a law in the moment dont count Second, just because the US does something bad too doesnt excuse Russia’s actions
I would say if a law can’t be enforced or if there isn’t a desire to enforce it all it it is a joke. In this case it’s a not funny joke. And now there is word that a hospital has been deliberately attacked and destroyed. ( unconfirmed)
The US specifically should know this, given their stance on prosecuting war crimes/possibly invading The Hague to prevent their citizens being tried there.
A law that can't be enforced is basically just a suggestion lmao I remember my local metro train had a "honor system" for fares and tickets, assuming you'd just follow the law. Fare gates went up real quick cause it turns out the honor system doesn't work.
@downtownswifty There is tons of misinformation and people adding dance music in shorts to clips of the war. So it is happening, that doesn't get into the trolls who will even troll when there is a country being invaded. I find it hilarious we have started calling this a war and not consistently hounded on the fact that this is an invasion. The Ukraine is in a war because it has no choice, at some point, something more than economic sanctions will need to be done. I hope Russia loses the support of its people, Putin is very intelligent but he is stuck in the past. Countries operating like China and Russia are not the way if the future.
@downtownswifty What do you mean by "that"? And what do you mean by videos that "contain study/information"? Your comment is incredibly vague and makes very little sense given what I said. Also given your initial comment it makes even less sense. Perhaps you don't know know what the word "information" means but you certainly aren't using it correctly.
I’m in an international law class right now! This was a great general overview of use of force and humanitarian law to get me in the mood to study for my international humanitarian law exam tomorrow!!
I feel like you missed an important beat with this one- a nation's laws and ability to enforce them *ultimately* come down to the power of the nation to maintain it's own sovereignty, which in itself *ultimately* comes down to the strength of the nation's diplomatic agreements, and the strength and willingness of it's military to fight a war. When you get down to it in a very dispassionate matter-of-fact sort of way, the 'ultimate law of the land' of a nation is underpinned by it's military and police, and as such international agreements are, too. Until the United Nations has it's own standing army with support from member nations, and the ability to intervene even without the consent of a permanent member of the security council there will be no 'higher power' to enforce laws than the strength of individual or groups of nations.
Oooooooor, IF THE powers of the permanent member states are curtailed against the weight of their evidenced aggression. Your statements are so true, yet disheartening but nonetheless true. That's why i can never be a pacifist, but that doesn't one can't avoid pointless aggression as much as possible. Great suggestions, too. Also, that's why like NATO, because it essentially bars the aligned member states will go to war with each other, which helps to unite former enemies instead of prolonging that enmity. Also, also, it would mean that no one nation of the member states has to have an extremely overbloated military, which should free up money for more social spending and general economic growth.
The "higher power" is a very simple one, it's called tit for tat. The United Nations doesn't need it's own standing army to enforce what laws it lays down. If you are a country that is a member of the United Nations you are there to enforce the U.N.'s laws and you decide to give it's laws the finger, you are forfeiting any protections those laws give you, both from member nations and non-members. If you ignore or defy the laws of the U.N. and someone decides to say toss a WMD your way, the U.N. is going to just go "tough luck, you're on your own."
Two details not covered in the video: 1. Some treaties do contain clauses for who judge violation of the treaty. But this is not always the case and it varies wildly. Also some treaties do include clauses for abandoning the treaty itself. 2. The legal argument that Russia is not part of the UN security council is a risky one. If Russia didn't inherited the USSR seat in the council, how did it inherited membership in the UN? And if it didn't inherited those then the security council has no autority on a country that is not a UN member. The veto power of the permanent members is the balance to the council binding power. Removing one will hurt the other.
Arguably, the veto power of the Security Council's Permanent Members is nothing more than recognising that neither Stalin nor the US Senate was ever going to agree to any international organsation that had more power than they did. (I'm not trying to equate Stalin and US Senators. Just noting that in 1946, neither of those parties was willing to accept any limit on their nations' ability to act however they chose.) I do agree that if Russia didn't inherit the USSR's Council seat, it also didn't inherit the USSR's membership. On the other hand, North Korea wasn't part of the UN in 1950 and that didn't prevent the UN from engaging in military operations against it. But let's be honest; if NATO wanted to engage in military action against Russia in 2022, they very much could. Basically, any country that COULD fight Russia doesn't need the UN's approval to do so.
Communist China "inherited" both the UN membership and the permanent seat on the SC from Nationalist China after they won their Civil War (and after some additional politics). Every country on the SC has had some form of "change of government" without losing their seat. Mostly this involves an election of a new head of state or head of government rather than a full blown revolution.
As for #2, the USSR had 3 seats on the UN, one for Russia, Ukraine, and Bulgaria, but only one on the Security council as the USSR. It could be argued that the USSR split into the three nations who each hold claim to their respective seats and to the security council seat(which is backed up by the fact that Putin wants to reform the USSR, as per a essay he wrote, and believes that Ukraine must be assimilated in order to do so). Russia being the largest was given the seat out of hand, but has since rejected their duty to follow the Security council's guidelines as a member of it's permanent seat by violating them. As both of the other two thirds of the USSR still exist and are part of the UN, should one of them not be given the USSR's seat after Russia abandoned the responsibility they claimed? While nations are not strictly like people, political inheritance is historically a thing with monarchy. This situation can be viewed as a King dying and leaving behind 3 sons, without indication by word or law as to who should succeed him. Naturally, the throne(which is a seat) was given to the "eldest"(Russia, who is the biggest), while the two "younger"(aka smaller) sons only got territory and a seat at the discussion table. So now that the holder of the throne is ignoring the duties they agreed to when claiming it, and trying to take out another inheretor, the other two heirs could press their claim to it. I would also like to point out that as the permanent seats cannot be removed or _transfered to another country_, the seat cannot belong to Russia as it was given to the USSR(which Russia is not). Therefore Russia can be removed as custodian of the USSR's seat, as long as it is given to another country that was created from the USSR. And as someone pointed out, China's seat also was inherited after their civil war. However, in that case, there was only one political entity to inherit the seat, so no real room to argue against their inheriting it.
@N Fels I didn't mean to imply that the transfer of the Chinese seats at both the UN and SC happened automatically, but that at some point in time the de facto situation on the ground was recognized by the international community and changed the representation in the UN. I don't have any firm opinions on whether or how the change in status of China's representation in the UN should be applied to the current USSR vs. Russia situation.
Why wouldn’t Ukraine and Belarus and the Baltic States, and Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, etc. also inherit Permanent Member status? Did Ukraine lose Permanent Membership by voluntarily giving up their nukes?
12:00 There's another point here, a country is obliged to abstain on any dispute they're a party to, so in principle Russia's veto should have been counted as an abstention, though in practice that rule is never enforced.
This video should really be 3seconds long with the phrase: "Might means Right" The US war against Iraq was declared illegal by the UN, and the US pretty much paid no mind to this!
international law didn't do anything about the American bombing of Somalia, or the man-made famine in Yemen caused by American sanctions, or the famine in Afghanistan caused by the 20 year war America waged on it. all of this is happening at the same time as the Russian invasion, and because they're war crimes done by America, no one seems to care.
@@sandrasim46 As the original comment says "might makes right". When you have the capacity to literally end life on earth as we know it other countries opinions don't really matter all that much.
For a war to be "illegal" means that there is a specific court that BOTH countries *fully recognize and obey* and there is some law that court has that was broken in that wars declaration. As soon as either country chooses not to recognize any court, its rulings and directives, or to simply disagree with a ruling the illegal term simply no longer applies.
Exactly. And since Russia treats the U.N. like a joke and blocks all attempts at any real world progress anyway, they should be kicked out of the U.N. ASAP. Since Russia is not technically a member of NATO, this shouldn't be a problem.
@@michaelj.beglinjr.2804 You could say much the same about China, but they will will have each others backs if for no other reason than to keep the US, EU and other democratic powers from having any real control. This is a part of why the UN is so ineffectual at dealing with any of the things its supposed to be able to do as a "world government".
I don't see what difference it makes whether it's 'legal' or not - people are still going to get killed either way. Indeed, some people probably think all wars should be illegal!
"As it turns out, it's really hard to speak a dead language." As a student of linguistics and history, this made me choke on, and spit out, my tea. God damn that was funny 🤣.
@@gorillaau The best we have are grammar nazis complaining. E.g. some guy wrote that the youth needs to stop with their soft C sounds and start using proper hard Cs, which got read as hard C being a K sound and a soft C being an S sound. Trust old people to complain about the younger generation. This does not take dialects into account, however.
Actually one of the problems with speaking this particular "dead" language is that it is not really dead. It changed over time as it developed, and was pronounced differently in different parts of the Roman Empire, and in different parts of the post-Roman world. Nowadays we have "Church Latin", "Scientific Latin", "Legal Latin", "Classical Latin", and many others with their own set of regional variations.
@@JaharNarishma There are also poems and such that clue scholars in on rhymes. The recreations of Shakespeare’s plays point out there were some pretty raunchy double entendres that get lost in modern performances.
"The strong do as they can, the weak suffer what they must" - Thucydides Fact of the matter is that no laws of warfare and foreign aggression truly exist, only what individual nations agree to do and don't. There is no world government and no word police force ready to stop aggressors such as Putin.
Doesn't the US think of themselves as "leaders of the free world" and the "worlds police"? I for one think they should live up to their self-made egotistical titles. But, unlike Iraq, Ukraine doesn't have anything the US needs for the moment; until they do then bombs away! Of course, it doesn't matter if Ukrainian civilians are killed if the US joins... just "collateral damage" after all.
@@VoidDragon82 I find it rather ironic that in the same breath of saying America SHOULD intervine you criticize the last time we intervened. Hell let's go back further to Nam. We totally helped there right? America has never been good at getting in the middle of open conflicts.
@@VoidDragon82 The U.S. being the "world's police" is the same as your local police force only responding to certain, but not all, crimes. The U.S. is not obligated by any treaty I am aware of to intervene by armed force whenever atrocities happen. They, just like every other nation, have their own preferences and priorities. A military intervention in Ukraine would be unthinkable given the current stakes as it would quickly spiral out of control and result in WW3. Well, the Russians aren't exactly shy of causing collateral damage. I am not sure if the massive civilian casualties at the hands of the Russian military is a result of incompetence or purposeful terror attacks.
Short answer: NO. And America has long held the view that international law was something others should abide to, but great powers like themselves should be exempt.
In a way, it can The economic sanctions imposed on Russia are making the Russian people cry with outrage It sucks that innocent russian people are being involved in the economic sanctions when many of them are in support of Ukraine and disavow the war But the russian citizens are what keep Russia on its feet and without it's people, it will collapse very fast and have long term damaging effects on it's economy and country as a whole (In my opinion) And International Law is really more like a guideline, as someones top comment is, hahaha People can choose to follow it, enforce it, not follow it End of the day, it's the people that decide things, not things in writing or whatever
If there were any jurisdiction over Russia, a lot of their military would probably be culpable for war crimes (mainly targeting civilians). Russia, like the US, however, is not a signatory to the ICC, because evidently accountability is for suckers. I think that what a lot of people mean by "illegal war" is an _unjust_ war. Putin's _cassus belli_ is transparently false, despite his efforts to Gish Gallop it into legitimacy. Another reason why it's called such is the fact that unlike Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, Ukraine is a significant resource (energy and farmland) that can put up a bit more than a token resistance. The real reasons why Putin wanted to invade Ukraine are to kick out a government that's unwilling to be a colony of Russia, and to secure a land corridor to Crimea which Russia illegally annexed, because oil/gas has been discovered in that area. The northern attacks are little more than state terrorism; I'm betting much of the better-trained forces are trying to supply Crimea.
A pretty good summary. I would add that although you said there is no "higher law" in international law there is the idea of "jus cogens" peremptory norms of international law that are *not* optional or dependent on state consent and cannot be derogated by treaty. Aggression is one of them.
Always remember when in college and taking International Realtions my professor said first day 'International Law isn't, it is just a gentleman's agreement'
I've been studying international law since 2014. When talking about upholding the international law, States tend to enact "Self-help theory" in order to put the other party to the dispute comply with treaty or international regime. However that is traditional way. But it's not as easy as it seems. Particularly when discussing dispute settlement, the intention or willingness of parties to the dispute is one of significant aspects and the others are good faith, cooperation and subsequently compliance with international law principles. The other ways of upholading the international law (when one of the parties to the dispute is a member of SC) is the parties conclude a treaty with regard cooperation of settling dispute between them and the substance of that treaty could arrange the restorative procedures regarding the outcomes or aftermath of the dispute. Why? Because every member of SC has moral obligation to practice international principles such as Sovereign equality and peaceful co-existance or friendly relations. In addition, it's by their recommendation a State could become a party to the UN. Also they have moral obligation to practice human rights whilst they are the determiner to investigate whether or not the human rights are occurred. Like the UN Charter, it has shown only through intention and cooperation peace and security could be made.
Don't think laws are going to stop this, kinda obvious when it comes to warfare that short of diplomatic approaches the only way your going to stop it is thru force. Laws only work on people who care to follow them
@@Soldat177 part of the explanation in the video is talking about the enforcement. As you said, laws are worth less without enforcement. Enforcement is one of the 3 parts of laws. It is not separate from the law. I read the original comment as "glad to become informed of how the international legal system works and now I have a better understanding of why the world is doing what it does against Russia". Your reply got read as "you used this word in your comment and I will read it as you missing a big part of everything, consequently seeing you as ignorant". Sorry, but I read malice and/or superiority complex from your response. It is very hard to read tone, especially when many have English as a second language and words have several meanings. I apologise for not trying to see the kindness in your response!
The idea of international law is still really new. As a result these ‘laws’ are really just guidelines for common discourse.also, anyone who thinks the UN is a world government isn’t someone to take seriously…
@@pieppy6058 It literally can't. Sure, the idea of an all-encompassing institute to facilitate diplomacy among the most powerful nations is a noble one, but since, in the name of "equality" all of these countries have veto rights, the UN is simply incapable of doing anything about the most powerful nations, since if, say, China is breaking the rules, China can just veto discussing it and that's the end of it.
Thank you for this video! I was hearing “illegal war” a lot and was wondering “aren’t all wars illegal?” And was hoping you would explain it! Thank you!
He does explain it. Peacekeeping mission by the UN are legal. So is a country defending itself against an invasion. And other countries helping the country defending itself if it asked them to.
There is this concept of a "jus ad bellum" or "right to war," a set of criteria to determine whether a war is just. One of those is the "Responsibility to Protect," which is a global commitment endorsed by every member of the UN to prevent or stop things like genocide and crimes against humanity. This is basically what Russia used to justify the invasion, Putin claimed a genocide was taking place in Eastern Ukraine, alleging neo-nazis were killing ethnic Russians. While there has certainly been a conflict going on there for years, casualties are pretty even, making the justification hard to believe. Traditionally, victims of a genocide are relatively unarmed and powerless, which is not the case here, it's kinda like calling the American Civil War a genocide of Southerners. So if the justification is baseless, then that would mean the war is illegal, just like people called the Iraq War illegal because the Bush administration alleged Saddam Hussein owned weapons of mass destruction, despite the complete lack of evidence for such claims.
Well, at the very least it hampers Russia's ability to wage war and makes it more noticeable for the Russian population, many of which are still confused over if there even is a war.
It's the latter that's having a noticeable effect. It's making it increasingly difficult for Russia to control the narrative in their own country, and for friendly nations to continue supporting Russia.
@@willsofer3679 Probably the main reason they're trying to cut Russia off from the rest of the world's internet. :s Putin and pals REALLY don't want to lose control of the narrative in their own country.
@@AegixDrakan And the ridiculous thing is that it's having the exact opposite effect. The "Barbara Streisand Effect", writ large on an international scale. The more you try to hide something big, the more it gets seen. They seem to still think that this is the 1980s, when information channels were limited.
I’m so glad you made this video! It’s refreshing to have someone ACTUALLY knowledgeable on this subject, give an unbiased explanation of what the hell is going on. Please, for the love of all that is holy, keep bringing us content like this. The vast majority of people really have nothing to go on but the various slanted bits and pieces of what is dribbled to us through our media outlets. Please keep it up. Could you explain more about how sanctions work, what Putin can do in retaliation, and where the line is that if crossed would cause the western world to directly intervene.
I don't have good answers to most of that but I do know the last one. The red line to cross is any other border in Europe, especially the Western one of Ukraine. Or tactical nukes. If he uses them pre-emptively like a true madman then there's no point in being afraid that he'll use them to retaliate against NATO forces.
Most Common Reasons For Wars A. Somebody did something somebody doesn't like or doesn't do something they want done, so they decide to put effort to either stop it or punish the them. B. Somebody has something the other wants and they decide to either take it by force or punish them for having it. C. Somebody is worried the other is going to do something to hurt or inconvenience them, so they choose to strike first. D. Disrespect for the other group. E. Hatred
It would be interesting to look at the legalities of insurance including damages caused by cyberattacks and whether cyber attacks also constitute a "act of war" which commonly voids the claim
It is an frightening consideration. Cyber attacks do have the potential to wreak havoc with utilities which could lead to damage to personal property and businesses as well as kill people (extended power outages leaving people unable to escape the heat or cold, for example). I suspect if something large scale did happen, insurance companies would refuse to pay up unless forced to by law. For instance, one thing that already happens is when a disaster is big enough that FEMA steps in, many people find their insurance refuses to pay up and instead tells them to call FEMA. That has left quite a few in a situation where they thought they were protected (why else pay insurance for all those years?) only to lose everything and get zero help from insurance and minimal help, if any, from the government.
I thought about that back in September 2001. If the terrible events of 9/11 were part of the "war against terrorism" would the insurance companies use that as a reason to not pay any claims? I think what happened was that legaly "war against terrorism" was treated as a marketing or propaganda term, not as a legal description of the acts. But since the insurance text usually exempts from payments acts of war "both declared and undeclared" the line between what is or is not considered an "act of war" for insurance purposes is very fuzzy
The Pentagon once met to discuss this very thing. The problem with cyber attack is that cyber attackers can spoof their location, or hack into the location and pivot attacks through them. So the Pentagon almost puts it in the category of spying, we know they hack, we can catch their operatives or pinpoint their locations, we attack them back with our own operatives but we consider it business as usual. If state hackers were to cause major damage in a hacking attempt they would likely consider it an act of war, but it would have to be something like launching multiple nukes or destroying the entire US power grid.
Specific overrules general. So if both "this policy is void for acts of war" and "this policy is valid for cyberattacks" apply, it means that the policy is valid for cyberattacks even if they are also acts of war.
One thing you're wrong about, Russia is internationally recognized by all countries as the legal heir of the Soviet Union and had to legally pay all the debt incurred by the Soviet Union and honor all treaties made by the USSR, which is why Russia inherits the permanent seat on the UN security council, through legal treaties. This idea that Russia should not be a permanent council member is far-fetched...emotions aside to what's going on in Ukraine...
8:57 I’m an idiot. When you said “mining of the Corfu channel and subsequent damage to British vessels” the first thing I pictured was some Albanians digging a huge hole then some ships sailing into it. 😐 When I realized my mistake, I felt… ashamed.
I’m glad I am not the only one who’s brain went that direction. I was confused about how the boats could have gotten damaged by mining until he worded it that they placed mines in the river...
It is really interesting seeing international law from other countries' perspectives. I'm from Mexico, where on 2011 the international treaties were put on the same level as the constitution
We have the same undesrtanding here in Brazil. The congress have to vote, using the same rules of the constitutional amendement rite, so the treaty integrate our body of laws on the same hyerarchy as our constitution.
Indeed it's a noble idea, but there's also the flaw that this constitutional authority only applies to treaties your country recognizes, and ones which apply to the situation at hand. For example; A trade agreement between Turkey and Ireland means nothing to Mexico. It doesn't even mention Mexico. Also, most treaties about "rules of war" and "war crimes" are meaningless today. They assume a formally declared state of war, which almost never happens anymore since we discovered "police action" and other euphemisms.
In the USA, treaties ratified by the US Senate are also “the Supreme Law of the Land”, equal to the Constitution. This has been the case back when the Constitution came into force, back in 1787 or so. This is why the US President has signed a number of never-ratified treaties, because the Senate did not want to accept vague promises that the President was fooled into accepting, at least as the other side (not always the other party) was concerned.
Using Russia's logic about the Security Council seat then Ukraine should have a seat as well since it was a part of the USSR as was Russia. The whole single member veto idea was a bad one to begin with and was an insistence from the USSR because it was a minority government alignment in the Council (US, UK, and France being generally align countries with similar political systems and at the time the USSR despised China).
Problem with the first line is that when it was part of the USSR Ukraine (and Belarus) both had their own seats already. So giving either the USSR seat would not work as they were already members even if they were not independent states.
@@alexwhite3830 In that case, wouldn't it be an argument to say that as Russia has rejected the duty to the Security council it claimed to have inherited from the USSR, the seat should go to another one of the USSR's heirs which still heeds the duties the USSR agreed to?
What's the point, even if a resolution is passed unanimously, it's non-binding. The UN is pointless in regards to major military powers (who obviously operate on there own terms).
My guess is that it was less in pursuit of justice, and more to reflect these nations had the strongest militaries. Having a veto would prevent them being ganged up on and reduce incentives to go rogue. This would further incentivise the permanent council members to find a solution to a crisis they all agree with - that way they none would have a reason to start invading. Basically the west and USSR agreeing to not reshape the post WW2 world order in a way one would find unacceptable. Clearly this hasn't worked. The veto has instead been used to avoid accountability when flouting the established rules, and Putin perceives Russia as having been wronged on the international stage, deciding wanton military aggression is the best way to achieve his goals - exactly the decision the UN was built to keep nations from making
@@polivarz6191 prevent people ganging up on each other sure, but I highly doubt they thought it'd reduce the incentive to go rogue, the veto power is only the ability to go rogue, 1 country in 5 can say I don't like this and the other 4 have to watch.
@@rinzzler366 yes and no. According to UN rules, surprise attacks are, if not banned, strongly frowned upon, and a UN mandate is normally needed for foreign operations (such as the west obtained, then abused and went beyond, during the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya). There isn't afaik any mechanism to stop a country from ignoring these rules, other than they will be hated and the threat one of the big hitters on the security council deciding to be world police. The only incentive for the permanent security council is, theoretically, the world order they built benefits them, so they have no reason to upend it
These nations want to have their cake and eat it too. Force everyone else to play by the rules while they dont. Which they can only get away with because of their powerful economies, connections and militaries. Russia doing their shady shit now, but the US did their shit in the 2000s to 2020, not to mention China's re-education camps on Uighurs. All of them are slimy one way or another.
The thing is, even if the Law said they should stop, we have seen time and time again that just cause the law or everyone else say they should doesn't mean they actually will. Take for instance the United States sanctions of Cuba. They are in breach of the law with a super-majority demanding that they end, and yet they don't. At the end of the day, laws are nothing more than some words on a paper.
@@ericquiabazza2608 Couldn't help but snicker at that comment. A funny coincidence where I have just finished reading Full Metal Daemon Muramasa, a story where the Law of Might (its really called that in the story) plays a pretty significant role.
@@matteste most likly because is a reality, you cant enforce judgment over anyone stronger (in several senses, fisically, skill and wealth) unless they are humble enough to acept it.
I am not a law student or a lawyer but I love watching your 15+ mins videos on all subjects. You should have another channel explaining introduction to law or something for your viewers. Good job.
So here’s a question: if the Soviet Union was the member of the UN security council, and Russia just assumed they had that seat after the Soviet Union collapsed, technically couldn’t Ukraine also claim the exact same thing since it was part of the Soviet Union just like Russia was?
Russia was granted the official international continuity to the USSR, I believe, at least in this regard. Dont quote me on that one, though. I am a 2nd semester law student in Austria, I just started international law.
To inherit the legacy of the Soviet Union, you first have to inherit also its massive debts and international obligations. Ukraine didn't take on any of the downsides so they can't claim any of the upsides either.
You forgot to mention the covenant sign between Russian and Ukrainian countries. It says that for return of nuclear missiles Ukrainian territory will never be invaded. That makes a new aspect of the conflict.
I didn’t go to law school but I took undergrad international law classes in the universities that I attended. I had to create a presentation on the codification of convention to procedures in the ICC. One of the hardest readings I had to do.
There were plenty of other good reasons for intervention to occur in Iraq. Like the leader constantly committing crimes against humanity against their own people!
@@mondocool5670 …and then we committed crimes against humanity against those same people… does “Abu Ghraib” ring a bell? Plus, the war inadvertently led to the creation of the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL)
The only caveat I'll make here is that I've been told that even when Ukraine was part of the USSR it was still its own "state" much like Texas is a state in the United States and had every right according to old treaties to establish its sovereignty once the USSR collapsed.
The dissolution of the Soviet Union was an agreement of the Ukrainian SSR, the Belarussian SSR, and also the Russian SSR. Technically Ukraine and Russia are both equal successors of the Soviet Union.
in the original conception of the USSR, it was a confederation of republics enjoying broad independence - while that didn't hold, there were still some artefacts of that, such as every state having its own national language and criminal code
@Leander Herman In theory, yes. But you can leave the EU if you want to, or just ignore orders from Brussels. The USSR just send tanks and soldiers to kill protesters and make sure the local government does what it's told by Moscow. Even in countries that weren't technically part of the USSR.
There actually are/were ostensibly legally binding agreements, the Budapest memos -A security agreement between Ukraine and US/UK/Russia; in exchange for post Soviet nuclear disarmament.
In the list of sources of US law, treaties should have been included: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and *all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States*, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
Tip: You need to add the second asterisk AFTER the comma, or the enclosed text will not be made boldface. There must be a space both before and after formatting symbols.
What i consider incompetent Gunpowder-Nations: USA, China, Russia, North-Korea and now, just new to the Friends-Group, Afghanistan. Those are Gunpowder-Barrels that need to be stopped at all Price. So: Lets do nothing. I'm sure 'Some More News', the RUclipsr, will also agree. It's not like he and others have Improvement-Advice and such-and-such. But even ignoring him anyway: Lets do Nothing. Another N-Korea has literally just been founded and literal Barbarians rule over Afgahnistan now, so whatever.
6:41 On a completely unrelated note can I just say that I adore this stock footage. I love the fact the only person wearing a hat is the Australian and it's a Akubra too, it brings me joy.
objection: the international law of the eu is in fact above the law of the constitution of it´s member countries. austria for example had to vote for it that they would be "below" eu-law and only after that the law of their constitution (i might´ve gotten some terms wrong but i hope it is clear what i meant to say)
It's not quite international though, but a supranational federation of countries in Europe. EU law is indeed above member state law (and so are the courts) because the member states have delegated a part of their sovereign powers to the EU by changing their constitutions and laws.
Except the EU still cannot directly enforce their laws in members states. There is no EU police or EU military. The only thing it can do is withhold payments to the member states and demand fines, but the member states can still ignore these (just look at Poland and their coal mine dispute)
@@M0rtanius I mean, they can, you've said it yourself, they fine non-compliant member states... Which is also how our own police forces would enforce most laws domestically, if you speed/litter/etc. you get a fine. The EU apparatus is just doing this at a much larger scale (side note, though not involved in the enforcement of laws applicable to member states, there is actually kind of an EU police force: Europol. Though more of a collaboration between all the national police forces, they are in fact considered a law enforcement agency in-and-of-themselves)
It should be added though that this only applies to the parts that the nations delegated to the EU. Regarding laws that the countries have not delegated to the EU those laws are above the EU's decisions.
Thank you for this clear explanation of an important subject. It's an embarrassment that we are not part of the ICC, just as it is an embarrassment that SCOTUS is not subject to the Federal Code of Ethics which governs Federal Judiciary.
I never though international law necessarily mattered in the grand scheme of things: What mattered is how international states responded to any agreements. It’s the principles behind it. No country, aside from Russia, is prepared to be sanctioned into economic oblivion.
"No country, aside from Russia, is prepared to be sanctioned into economic oblivion." There is no Law between States. The Economy is going to be changed. The CCP in Asia and something new in the West. China and Russia bought into a system that is going to gatekeep them both out. Cashless and probably coinless too. Less interconnected and less interdependent.
Great video, as a currently studying lawyer in the making i loved the fast pace as opposed to usual international law lectures. Though i must point out that you failed to mention "jus cogens" norms as higher in the hierarchy of international law norms, which are norms "from which no derrogation is permitted" such as torture and use of agression and so on. Otherwise great video!
What i consider incompetent Gunpowder-Nations: USA, China, Russia, North-Korea and now, just new to the Friends-Group, Afghanistan. Those are Gunpowder-Barrels that need to be stopped at all Price. So: Lets do nothing.
Russia is not a successor of USSR, because Russia left USSR on 8 December 1991, but the last country that left USSR was Kazakhstan, on 16 December 1991. So it's Kazakhstan is successor of USSR, not the Russia.
I think when the answer to the question "oh yeah? you and what army?" is "that one right there", we may have escalated past the court system. just saying.
He never, ever let other heads of state forget that though. For example Angela Merkel has a dog phobia. Putin always let his huge dog out, when she was there, took it along to meet her, let it run around unleashed and jump all over her. This guy is an absolute sadist.
I start laughing when someone starts talking about "international law" and "illegal invasion." What, do they expect UN peacekeepers to invade Russia? *When Russia has a veto on the security council?* Good luck with that. You cant even legally enforce the laws, and that is before we even get to the practicalities of getting a multinational coalition to invade the country that is producing energy for a large portion of that coalition. No, if someone wants to do something about this it will have to be unilateral. And the only countries that even could are China and the USA. China never would and no one in the US has the stomach for a land war in Russia.
So, in a nutshell, only the security council has enough authority to do anything about this, and they can’t do anything about it unless the “Russia has no seat” movement kicks off. Got it
NATO could intervene any time it wanted to. The thing is, as soon as NATO intervenes, Russia is at war with the US and World War 3 happens. NATO - and many other states - are funneling massive amounts of weapons and ammunition to Ukraine. Foreign volunteers are clearly going into Ukraine to help fight. Unlike the Spanish Civil War, no state has forbidden their citizens from assisting (to my knowledge, anyway). It seems pretty clear to me that the US and NATO are hoping to turn this into Russia's Vietnam - keep Putin tied up trying to fight in Ukraine so he doesn't invade anywhere else and we don't end up nuking the planet. Which kind of sucks for Ukraine, but also seems to me to be the least bad option at this point.
Even then, there's still issues. 1) If Russia didn't inherit the USSR's seat, then they also aren't members of the UN anymore and would no longer be subject to the UN's authority. 2) The security council doesn't have dedicated troops. They still have to rely on donated troops from member countries.
@@randomstuff-qu7sh Enh, as I said on another comment there's precedent for the UN taking military action against a non-member in defence of a member: the Korean War. North Korea didn't join the UN until the 1990s. The real problem is that unless the US, China, or maybe the EU as a whole or India is willing to put boots on the ground, no-one has enough military strength to really take on Russia; and all of those options mean war between nuclear powers, which probably ends badly.
@@randomstuff-qu7sh Makes me wonder if we should make one. As in, take a part of the militaries of each member country and designate them permanent security council peacekeepers or something
It's really easy to see why the people love Zelensky. He's been everything you could want in a leader through all of this. It would be kind of like Stephen Colbert or Jon Stewart being president and being the best president we've had in a long time. It's so sad what the Ukrainian people are going through. But the inspiring stories keep coming: a couple getting married in battle gear or a grandma making molotovs, I have nothing but respect for them. Someone in Moscow needs to stand up to Putin. His own citizens and soldiers don't want anything to do with the war. This is all happening because of one man's warped world view.
Unfortunately, as we've seen through history, there are only three ways to get accountability through law: respect of laws in general, respect for the spirit/intent of the law, and threats of force under color of law. As we can plainly see in international law, the P5 members of the UNSC (especially the US and Russia) don't have respect for law or respect for the spirit/intent of the law, and because they are members of the P5 they are immune to most consequences for that lack of compliance. At the very least, Russias lack of presence within some key unions and alliances (in particular, the EU) allows for mild economic consequences to use for compliance, but if a country like the US were to invade some sovereign nation, for example maybe Iraq or Afghanistan, they'd be immune from consequences because of the EU's dependence on the US and the US's role as P5 member of the UNSC and the de facto head of NATO
How do you think the war will end?
🇺🇦 Help Support Ukraine with Tab For a Cause: legaleagle.link/tabforacause
Hello
Thank you for this video.
With Nestor Makhno rising from his grave, wagging his finger and saying, "Not this time, Russia."
Thank you for making this video!!!
with much more bloodshed.
"International Law is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules.” - Captain Barbossa
Had a good laugh on that one 😆
and you have to be a politic... I mena Pirate to follow the code.
"I'm disinclined to acquiesce your request."-Capt Barbosa
Fr lol!!
🤣🤣 Legend
It’s not just international law: all laws are only worth what people or groups with power are prepared to spend on enforcing them.
There is no Law between States.
@@Homeschoolsw6 yes there are, but they are worthless if not enforced
@@lurau6319 Yes, different comment I guess. Laws need enforcing. Otherwise why write @ll those words down?
Countries pick and choose what Laws they'll have, when they'll enforce them and with whom. Depending on circumstances and fortune. The US is against all kinds of actions on the international stage, then they do the same things , the things they say they are against. Say one thing...do another.
@@lurau6319 " An ambassador is an honest man, sent to lie abroad for the good of his country. " scuse me.
@@lurau6319 and the "enforcers" are totally non-biased and always just.
Being robbed?
Just say: “No”
A thief cannot legally take your possessions without your consent
Better yet, if an acquaintance is taking your stuff, just say “I withdraw my consent!” and now you can sue them for illegally taking it. :D
...and a thief can get shot dead for it too!
@@robinmiller5256 if they werent imminently threatening you with deadly force... enjoy your time in jail for doing so.
@@robinmiller5256 Not if they don't consent to being shot. Jeez, where did you even GO to law school?
@@pbgd3
Hard to imagine a robber who isn't imminently threatening to you.
Here in Ukraine the UN's deep concern had become a running joke, but alas, we don't have any other international law system. Thanks for taking time to explain at least a part of the whole ordeal.
There in Ukraine you were arming up to directly attack Russia, we know this because Poroshenko, Hollande and Merkel all admittted it earlier this year.
From my time taking international law courses in law school I learned that international law is primarily a set of fluid guidelines that are only meaningful when backed by real military and economic power. The few times when international law tried to break free from this countries just ignored it.
So it's the Code from Pirates of the Caribbean? 😂
Basically USA v. Nicaragua
@@corruptangel6793 Pretty much. It's a strong suggestion, with consequences for violating it. Usually. It's not just rogue nations like Russia that have done it; the United States did the same with the Iraq War, and as previously mentioned, Nicaragua.
Putin doesn't care about any laws. He follows none. He's a white supremacist mass murderer, and a despot who imprisons, tortures, and murders anyone who criticizes the Russian government. He's a pathetic coward just like the Republicans who support him and have openly praised his invasion while blaming Biden for it.
As one of my law professors said, people talk about international law, but it really doesn't exist.
1:40 - Chapter 1 - Background to conflict
4:20 - Chapter 2 - International law explained
6:50 - Chapter 3 - Treaties
8:25 - Chapter 4 - General principles of civilized nations
9:15 - Chapter 5 - Other sources of law
9:35 - Chapter 6 - What about the UN ?
10:20 - Chapter 7 - What about the security council ?
12:35 - Chapter 8 - Use of force under international law
13:00 - Chapter 9 - Exceptions
14:30 - Chapter 10 - Self defence
15:35 - Chapter 11 - Is the war in Ukraine illegal under international war ?
18:25 - End roll ads
Don't you just love "international law"
MVP
Brilliant, thanks! 🙏👍🙏👍
Thanks bro
Thank you, time stamp hero. ❤️
Having somebody who actually knows what they're talking explain situations and laws in a way that is easy to understand and often entertaining is a recouce I'm very glad we have. Jeep up the good work man.
Jeep up the good work.
Ford up the good work man.
Fiat Chrysler Dodge up the good work
Tesla up the good work man.
Despite your typos I agree. Jeep learnin’ 😉
The EU is an interesting experiment in actual, manifest international law, where 27 countries suborn parts of their national self-rule to a extranational organization. Especially the EEA members (Norway, Iceland, Lichtenstein) are interesting because they have a rubber-stamp agreement where they approve every legislation coming in from the EU, without actually being members with voting rights.
I don't know if the African Union is built on the same model, but it is an interesting exception to the general rule that international obligations are only binding as long as A) the country in question agrees, or B) the rest of the countries gang up to enforce it.
To be fair, for the system in the EU to even work there are so many asterisks in their documents that they outnumber the letters. My home country of Sweden isn't following a wide array of EU law, such as animal welfare, tobacco usage, logging industry and currency just to name a few. This is what I think is the primary problem/challenge with the EU, and why many people grumble over legislators in brussels deciding over matters they don't understand, myself included.
When it was a member, the UK had a standing veto against EU legislation, allowing it to decline to adopt any passed law which it felt contradicted UK law or worked against the interests of the UK.
They still have issues with quite a few central/Eastern European nations though, in that they have cultural norms (and laws supporting/prohibiting them) which are in direct conflict with some EU laws, and some governments have been refusing to adopt the EU laws over their own
The simple fact is that, unlike somewhere like the US, the wide expanse of Europe was not gradually settled/colonised by one or two key sociocultural groups gradually spreading west. That allowed the US to be constructed of states which held similar cultural beliefs. In Europe, much like the original Native American tribes, the population started as multiple diverse clans (“nations”) which grew independently with their own customs until they agreed borders and territories as separate states. Over such a large area, the range of cultures and customs differed wildly. For example, there are customs in Spain which aren’t matched in Switzerland, and both have customs different to those in Turkey or Sweden.
This means that it is nearly impossible to craft a collection of laws which are the same across all the states. Sooner or later, some states will raise objections as they contradict their laws or beliefs.
I mean, if one of the members of the EU decides that it no longer wants to follow the laws of the EU and doesn't care about any of the possible economic repercutions (such as sanctions or losing it's membership) the only real way the other members of the EU have to enforce their will is by overt military force. There is a reason why force is called the ultimate authority.
@@garibaldilebeau there's more cultural homogeneity in Europe than you believe. All christian nations and all liberal democracies, and many countries share a lot in terms of culture, like the romance coubtries and the germanic ones. Besides, Switzerland has done just that for centuries, the country is made out of 4 different ethnicities, french, italian, german and romansch. Seriously, tge role model for the EU is located right at its center.
How is that different? EU countries agree to those rules.
International law is more down the line of "If I don't do it, then I can expect you not to do it either". So more like a code of conduct or honor, which serves as common ground the interact with other countries without needing to fear extremely crazy things happenening
Or "If you don't do it why should you expect me to?'
Then nutjobs like Putin enter the chat.....His code of Conduct is "Me first, then the Soviet Un-er..I mean Russia"
@@handsoftheSinner Umm "If I don't do it, then I can expect you not to do it either" - The first thing that comes to mind in this context is 2003 Iraq invasion. And then the multitude of times NATO breached the sovereignty of many, many countries.
@@Raseef38801 idk why you tagged me in a response irrelevant to what I said but.. okay?
@@handsoftheSinner Yeah I probably hit the wrong 'Reply' button.
It's not totally irrelevant though. George Bush was the first nutjob in the chat. Putin is just trying to imitate him.
The coherent theme of most legal analysis content I watch to listen to seems to be, "If you did it, straight to jail. But when someone powerful does it, probably not."
The problem is not "is he breaking the law", but "can we actually make that mean something"? It's not like we can just send "international cops" to Moscow and arrest Putin.
true, when USA attack Iraq, there are millions of protestors and UN declared it illegal, but USA stll go thru with it anyway. They didnt get any repercussions for it despite unable to prove Al-Qaeda links and the existence of nuclear weapons development
Laws are only as good as they are enforced, it's true. "International Law" is more like...a set of polite suggestions.
International Law is just a method of tracking Nations we collectively find appalling at a specific time.
It just gives us a criteria to be angry.
@@yobrodontshoot1130 And many moustaches were rustled that day in disgust, more than a few monocles fell to the floor and shattered...
Really, whomever came up with the Security Council rules should have included a stipulation that a country who is both a permanent member and a belligerent in a conflict cannot take part in the vote. Yes I would have this apply to the United States and their forever wars as I would the current Soviet Un- I mean Russia.
If that were the case, the USSR would never have joined the UN.
The other four Permanent Council Members were the USA, France, the UK, and Nationalist China.
If they were able to enforce international law against the USSR with impunity, the UN would've been a free world-only organization, which defeats its purpose as an international forum for diplomacy.
@@adamvale945 A international forum for diplomacy is almost as pointless if some of the main offenders are given the power to effectively ignore rules.
@@darthplagueis13 It's quite useful for small nations, which otherwise would rarely get their issues discussed at all.
People easily forget, but before the UN diplomacy between multiple nations was exceedingly rare.
Without international organizations like the UN, corralling the nations of the world to get the number of sanctions leveled against Russia we've seen recently would've been impossible.
thing is... there IS a rule like that. A country is obliged to abstain on any dispute they're a party to, so in principle Russia's veto should have been counted as an abstention, though in practice that rule is never enforced.
Yes, but include temporary members too.
"It's really hard to speak a dead language"
Me who had to endure 5 years of Latin classes back in high school in Italy: *I feel you*.
Amō latīnam
@@steakfilly5199 Etiam amo!
It's actually not that hard-people often miss the fact that "dead language" doesn't mean "not spoken anymore", it means "not spoken _natively_ anymore". There still many people speaking some degree of Latin, and some are even fluent in it-and same for a few others (Ancient Greek, Sanskrit come to mind)
Historically speaking, the real use of international law is resolving the end of wars rather than outlaw it. Sure, you can make war illegal, but presumably if a country is doing a big invade, then they don't care about the surrounding international law. When the war is over, though, it allows the winners and losers to be prosecuted for their actions by the international community with a decent framework to ensure an aproximately just level of sanctions and terms.
Ho just use the system and make shit up to justify any action.
Winner writes history and trials after all.
Yeah idk, its arguable that the point is to oppress a certain nation or group of people. Plenty of examples where an international committee pretends to do something out of a bleeding heart but is actually crippling an enemy of the state's economy.
@@alalala132whyisthishandletaken oh yeah, there's plenty of that to. The borders of the middle east being a prime example. Iraq is basically indefensible and has a water supply at the whims of its neighbors further northwest. Not to mention the dozen mile coastline that renders it basically landlocked and incapable of being a naval power. The result means they are garunteed to go to war periodically for the sake of survival.
More like the losers be prosecuted not the winners and losers
Law is simply legal enforcement of ones will.
Appreciating this deep dive focus on the question, "What is International Law?" And coming to the grim result that the answer is, "Only as powerful as its enforcement."
To be honest, all law is only as powerful as we enforce it. There’s a reason everybody jaywalks even though it’s technically illegal
The bigger issue is that international law is a system of treaties that nations voluntarily agree to. There is no global authority that can enforce laws on entire nations against their will.
@@frownyclowny6955 What i consider incompetent Gunpowder-Nations:
USA, China, Russia, North-Korea and now, just new to the Friends-Group, Afghanistan.
Those are Gunpowder-Barrels that need to be stopped at all Price.
So: Lets do nothing.
I'm sure 'Some More News', the RUclipsr, will also agree. It's not like he and others have Improvement-Advice and such-and-such.
But even ignoring him anyway: Lets do Nothing.
Another N-Korea has literally just been founded and literal Barbarians rule over Afgahnistan now, so whatever.
i just realized watching this that the reason russia is investing so heavily in propaganda in india is because they currently have a seat on the security council and if they have india and china on their side it will make it much harder for them to be removed from it
Just like all laws.
"Can International Law Stop Putin's War on Ukraine" is a bit like saying "Can making theft illegal stop people from stealing things?"
The answer is that it only STOPS people who are willing to follow the rules. The real question is if the perpetrator will actually be punished meaninfully. That isn't going to be very helpful for the people of Ukraine if it only happens after the fact.
Yea I was gonna post something like this. Putin doesn't seem to care at all about international law, despite him knowing he is violating it. Then on top of it, his army is committing war crimes in Ukraine, and still, he doesn't care.
Superpowers have been walking past the line because they're bullies.
The punishment is happening during the crime in this case, which weakens Russia's economy, thus indirectly weakening Russia's military. It's something.
My dad used to say "Fences and locks are there to keep the honest people out"
@@jayc1139 Not only that but they have agreed to open up "civilian evacuation corridors" 3 times during negotiations and then Russian artillery have bombed them. Putin doesn't give a shit about laws.
wrote a 5 page paper on the russia ukraine tensions back in december 2021 and it STILL barely scratched the surface yall he’s not wrong when he says this issue is insanely complicated
What is complicated?
Russia always stealing from neighbors : history, traditions, icons, territory, life of people.
Russia uses 8 years Donbass
it really isn't complicated. ukraine is under the control of a nazi puppet state, russia is liberating russian speaking territory and demilitarizing the fascist regime in ukraine that was installed by the west. if you support ukraine, you support imperialism and fascism. simple as that. you could def go into more detail, but that is more than enough of a factual understanding of the situation for the average non-statesman.
I had one as a high school student taking International Relations, and the textbook wasn’t even updated. This conflict is incredibly interesting and complicated, and watching it progress is both fascinating and worrying.
I never thought about whether a war was "legal" or not. I've always thought invading another sovereign country was not exactly legal, and definitely immoral.
After hitler they loosely agreed that wars based on territorial expansion were wars of Aggression and Aggression was 'Illegal'. WW2 effect.
the iraq war is one of the most important and intresting of why the un doesnt exactly work, the us made a claim that they had proof of the production of weapons of mass destruction in iraq (the proof turned out to be fake) and when the war ended they found no further proof that there were "weapons of mass destruction" the us called it "a big mistake" and there was no form action taken against the aggressors of the war
@@xristoskoumpourlis1614 I just found out that Yemen was the only country at the UN who voted against that War. I failed to note it at the time. ....... Anyway Yes you are right I think. Nato has the teeth that the UN should have had. but no nuclear diplomecy for UN.
If you declare war and have a proper casus belli, it's not illegal.
@@vitkosbence3705 Well thematically i think i hear you but the history is not as speculative as you are describing quite. Wars of Aggression are technically illegal and the argument between nations specifically goes back to hitler and Poland, although the factors you are describing were and are at play. Wars of aggression were likewise rejected politically over the same events globally by 1955 and earlier by a few years for most of the world - this attitude was similar to the dramatically changed attitude of the masses of all countries towards trench warfare after WW1. nothing you say is wrong but there is a little less room to be speculative as the history is universally clear. Wars of Aggression got their bookmark in the legalese due to WW2. Many slimy workarounds have transpired since and I'm pretty sure only one African country and Yugoslavia and one more country (Africa i think but not sure atm) are the only countries to date to be prosecuted for war crimes. It's all slimy as heck and hypocritical but it is there. like the half thought out laws around hate speech that are half enforced or used against us - a good lawyer or a clear situation makes it workable, otherwise lies destroy most of what is real. Like Zelensky's lies about a no fly zone. he is selfish and reckless. Not that I'm cheering for the other side or anything. Russia is wrong, and Ukraine is acting a fool as well. it's all a mess. this ones about 'Nuclear diplomacy' as well. An even less stable situation that. fingers crossed they all stop purring gas on the fire.
I have great respect to both Ukrainian defenders and Russian anti-war protesters. Also great sympathy to Ukrainian civilians, and young Russian conscripts who were fooled to go to war. Best wishes from Finland.
Me too... I don't know if it's true, but I read that Russia uses conscription as a punishment, meaning some of those young soldiers might have been basically declared enemies of the state, forced into the military, and thrown into a dangerous situation as cannon fodder. It's beyond horrifying, and I hope they're given the chance to escape somehow.
@@solitarelee6200 That's really despicable and inhumane, and dare I say, ironically anti-Russian.
My country has mandatory military conscription for 2 years, and I am horrified to learn that the front line soldiers are young men going through a phase, and made to lose their lives because of their leaders.
My hearts go out to them, and I hope for an early ceasefire, so we can protect not just Ukrainians, but also Russians who suffer under a select few's madness.
@@Kirinboy39 Ukrainians don't want or need Russian protection. They need protection FROM Putin. Have you not noticed there isn't any footage of Russian soldier's being greeted like hero's? You've either been lied to by a crazy old dictator, QAnon or you're a troll.
I was watching this go down & was noting the similarities to the Russian invasion of Finland during WWII. I can only hope the world doesn't come out of this hating the Russian people. This war is just aweful from all angles.
Distant Finnish myself. I hope one day to visit.
@@babababuck I don't think they're saying what you think their saying, you have the spirit tho.
Finding someone guilty of a crime, or holding someone to their agreement, is fine. The trouble comes with enforcement.
Absolutely.
The three foundations of government:
1. Make rules.
2. Identify infractions of the rules.
3. Enforce the rules.
Politicians deal with #1. Judges and lawyers deal with #2. The police deal with #3.
How do you do that on an international scale? A lot of powerful nations dislike the idea of someone else messing with their nation.
@@JaharNarishma In theory, the enforcement side would come from the security council and from member nations donating troops to the cause. In practice, the veto power of the 5 permanent members makes them somewhat above the law, since they can prevent stuff they don't like. Having to rely on donated troops is also problematic since they end up in situations where nobody is willing to send enough to do any good.
@@randomstuff-qu7sh it's mostly "neutral" & "peaceful" countries that send their soldiers as peacekeeping forces. Well peaceful until some shit goes down domestically.
@@randomstuff-qu7sh Which is why the current version of the Security Council should be abolished. That's like having only a select few in a democracy allowed to vote and any of these elites able to veto a vote. Ridiculous and outdated.
UN: “Russia, you’re not on the security council, that seat was held by the Soviet Union which your no longer are”
Russia: “we are the Soviet Union”
UN: “I thought you guys broke up”
Soviet Union: “that’s what we wanted you to think!”
I'd really like to see this discussed more, as the United States did something similar with France in order to avoid aiding the First French Republic in war. The argument was that the treaty was signed by King Louis and as the people had beheaded King Louis, the treaty no longer had any force.
I mean, Russia literally left the USSR-and wasn't even the last country to do so (Kazakhstan was), so... there's a argument to be had. But it's generally recognized that Russia succeeded the USSR, though I don't know if it's codified in any treaty.
Your argument is disingeuous.
I am from Russia and a lot of our people are terrified by this war. Feeling so helpless right now.
Thank you for everyone who supporting Ukraine 🇺🇦
Слава Украине ❤️
Good luck, stay safe, extra vpns and proxy networks.
You are from Russia, can i ask you a question; do you think Putin want other territories beside Ukraine(because if that's so then WW3 is inevitable)?
I hope you know that we don't fault you, but rather your leaders who have created this situation.
I hope that together, the world can work to create peace and stop wars altogether.
@@nicolovoci7265 I really don’t have good faith in Romania and Poland being so close to Ukraine if it was to fall. Past relationships with Russia just have never been good. I’m not from Russia but I know for a fact Ukraine would not be the only place they feel the need to de-naz
Good luck my friend
Me and my friend were talking about this and how ‘international law’ (specifically war crimes) don’t mean anything unless they can be enforced
international law hasn't meant anything since the invasion of Iraq, forget enforcing it. Even recognising it has become a game of who has more supporters.
The coalition of the willing could invade Turkmenistan tomorrow and virtually no one would give a damn.
Generally war crime conviction on senior leaders and political leaders will happen (if they do at all) after the conflict is over. Militaries will tend to prosecute their own personnel or captured fighters who have been determined to be unlawful combatants who violated the Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) as soon as they feel the need to prosecute is met.
honestly all laws can mean something, it is partially about enforcement but also partially about respecting said laws, perhaps you don't smoke a drug, not because you don't want to or are opposed to it, but simply because its illegal, even if the law is not well enforced it can still prevent people from doing such just by existing.
the same can be said about countries, laws only work if countries choose to abide by them or they are enforced, one, the other or both need to work for laws to function, when both are lacking then the law is essentially words on a paper.
I think the ICC could convict Putin of war crimes in absentia. He could never travel outside Russia ever again under threat of arrest.
@@bleebu5448 You are correct. It is not without precedence.
One of the best RUclips channels. I've been waiting to hear Devin's discussion of the Russia-Ukraine War, and when you notice his choice of tie you realize how much thought and effort he puts into his videos.
👔
I don't often notice such things, so I'm glad you pointed it out.
I totally noticed the tie colors and paused the video to see who noticed it.
How much thought and effort he puts into virtue-signalling... Hollow gestures only merit hollow praise...
@@TimParker-Chambers You are aware that the tie is the embodiment of the suit's personality, right? The man gets to choose one thing about his outfit that isn't a standard suit, and he chose to send a message of support. Good enough for me, when compared to downbeats like you, trying to diminish goodness and empathy on sight.
Fun fact: the USA is the primary force to use its Navy to enforce the international Law of the Sea... despite being a signatory to the treaty who has never actually ratified it.
We keep aircraft carrier groups capable of wiping out entire countries just outside the 12 nautical mile 'territorial waters' of China and Iran and somehow get upset when those countries 'buzz' our jets.
Just imagine if Russia had a couple of warships or submarines even within 200 nautical miles of our shores... Oh right, you don't have to imagine because we already know what would happen from the 'Cuban' missile crisis.
This is not in any way an excuse for Russia. They are still aggressors we must confront. This is only to point out the backfoot hypocrisy we are starting from.
I like the choice of tie. Keep it smooth, my good man.
Real talk though, international law is a topic I've always wanted to get into, but it seems so "hand-wavy". Glad to see you're dipping into the subject.
As a Swiss, thank you for naming Switzerland AND Sweden.
I'm sure this will confuse some people, but now they can learn, that we are two different countries :)
I didn’t know people confused the two.
@@kevinbarber2795 I’m sure a lot of Americans do
@@gregbors8364 I can concur. I'm a Swiss-American. When I tell people that, people tend to mention Sweden more than Switzerland.
@@twylenb Funny, I had a Swedish girlfriend who had a Swiss father, and she said her fellow Swedes constantly reminded her about that
Stop lying, we are the same pretending to be two countries just to confuse everyone.
The problem with Russia assuming it’s role as a permanent member of the UN Security Council as a successor of the Soviet Union is that it was never voted on by the UN.
Former Soviet nations that had declared independence after the dissolution of the Soviet Union had to reapply to UN under their new government as a “new” country.
Russia was just given their spot without having to reapply as other nations were required to do. That’s the primary point of contention as to why Russia should be expelled from both the Security Council and the UN itself.
Did the UN general assembly ever vote on the structure of the security council?
But the UN needs all nuclear powers on side as it serves as an outlet for diplomacy
As mentioned in the video...
Russia was victor in the world war 2. france was just invited
I feel like there's some sort of limitation to this line of argument. It's been almost 30 years since the fall of the USSR and they've been recognized as a member of the UN implicitly. It seems fishy and against the UN spirit to bring up a procedural hiccup now that it's convenient.
Thank you very much for taking this topic on, as you has taken on a number of serious legal topics LegalEagle.
I appreciate the info very much for clarifying areas of this horrible war I had no real clue about.
I also thank you for encouraging people to help Ukraine on some level with the browser add on.
You are a great tribute to lawyers everywhere!
If there is a dispute regarding international law, the countries with nukes have been historically always right - nobody opposed their judgment.
Lol this is true
india and china would like to have a word with you.
Except other countries with nukes...
People only have nukes because a dude from New Zealand split the atom believing it was a step towards renewable energy, and people immediately weaponized it, pissing on his grave
@@JargonMadjin thorium nuclear energy is very, very difficult to weaponize.
So.....there's that....🤷♂️
I mean, the US of all countries should know that international law only matters when someone is willing to enforce it against you.
That is of course true for all laws.
who?
@@michaelpettersson4919 obviously - the difference being that with most laws, there’s some sort of established authority and set punishments, where with international laws the only recourse is either sanctions or war, both of which have consequences for the country trying to enforce, too.
Just like any law really
Just wait for Russia to “accidentally” pass through a former eastern bloc nation that’s a NATO member.
I mean, even if it is illegal… is it really going to stop him? If a law is impossible to enforce, is it even a law?
edit: a lot of you guys are missing the point
First of all, prevention and prosecution count as enforcement, so examples of mass shootings and using force to break a law in the moment dont count
Second, just because the US does something bad too doesnt excuse Russia’s actions
I would say if a law can’t be enforced or if there isn’t a desire to enforce it all it it is a joke. In this case it’s a not funny joke.
And now there is word that a hospital has been deliberately attacked and destroyed. ( unconfirmed)
The US specifically should know this, given their stance on prosecuting war crimes/possibly invading The Hague to prevent their citizens being tried there.
A law that can't be enforced is basically just a suggestion lmao
I remember my local metro train had a "honor system" for fares and tickets, assuming you'd just follow the law.
Fare gates went up real quick cause it turns out the honor system doesn't work.
Mass shootings is also pretty illegal , I don’t think we should remove laws against it just because we can’t stop them when they happen.
He DID stop with Crimea last time after the ICC ruled that what he was doing was illegal.
I started watching you in high school for fun. Now, I’m applying to law school and internships at The Hague.
Keep everyone updated!!! We may need your expertise one day in the future. 😁
Good luck
Love the tie, Devin
I like these kinds of videos. No constant joking, referencing, or memeing. Just information, presented competently.
Agreed. Sometimes the memes and jokes work. This ain’t one of those times.
@downtownswifty I mean compared to Legal Eagle videos generally, not the discussion of Ukraine
@downtownswifty There is tons of misinformation and people adding dance music in shorts to clips of the war. So it is happening, that doesn't get into the trolls who will even troll when there is a country being invaded. I find it hilarious we have started calling this a war and not consistently hounded on the fact that this is an invasion. The Ukraine is in a war because it has no choice, at some point, something more than economic sanctions will need to be done. I hope Russia loses the support of its people, Putin is very intelligent but he is stuck in the past. Countries operating like China and Russia are not the way if the future.
@downtownswifty What do you mean by "that"? And what do you mean by videos that "contain study/information"? Your comment is incredibly vague and makes very little sense given what I said. Also given your initial comment it makes even less sense. Perhaps you don't know know what the word "information" means but you certainly aren't using it correctly.
You mean apart from the constant snipes against Trump?
I’m in an international law class right now! This was a great general overview of use of force and humanitarian law to get me in the mood to study for my international humanitarian law exam tomorrow!!
A year later, the public needs to know: How’d you do?
I feel like you missed an important beat with this one- a nation's laws and ability to enforce them *ultimately* come down to the power of the nation to maintain it's own sovereignty, which in itself *ultimately* comes down to the strength of the nation's diplomatic agreements, and the strength and willingness of it's military to fight a war. When you get down to it in a very dispassionate matter-of-fact sort of way, the 'ultimate law of the land' of a nation is underpinned by it's military and police, and as such international agreements are, too. Until the United Nations has it's own standing army with support from member nations, and the ability to intervene even without the consent of a permanent member of the security council there will be no 'higher power' to enforce laws than the strength of individual or groups of nations.
Oooooooor, IF THE powers of the permanent member states are curtailed against the weight of their evidenced aggression. Your statements are so true, yet disheartening but nonetheless true. That's why i can never be a pacifist, but that doesn't one can't avoid pointless aggression as much as possible. Great suggestions, too. Also, that's why like NATO, because it essentially bars the aligned member states will go to war with each other, which helps to unite former enemies instead of prolonging that enmity. Also, also, it would mean that no one nation of the member states has to have an extremely overbloated military, which should free up money for more social spending and general economic growth.
The "higher power" is a very simple one, it's called tit for tat. The United Nations doesn't need it's own standing army to enforce what laws it lays down. If you are a country that is a member of the United Nations you are there to enforce the U.N.'s laws and you decide to give it's laws the finger, you are forfeiting any protections those laws give you, both from member nations and non-members. If you ignore or defy the laws of the U.N. and someone decides to say toss a WMD your way, the U.N. is going to just go "tough luck, you're on your own."
Two details not covered in the video:
1. Some treaties do contain clauses for who judge violation of the treaty. But this is not always the case and it varies wildly. Also some treaties do include clauses for abandoning the treaty itself.
2. The legal argument that Russia is not part of the UN security council is a risky one. If Russia didn't inherited the USSR seat in the council, how did it inherited membership in the UN? And if it didn't inherited those then the security council has no autority on a country that is not a UN member. The veto power of the permanent members is the balance to the council binding power. Removing one will hurt the other.
Arguably, the veto power of the Security Council's Permanent Members is nothing more than recognising that neither Stalin nor the US Senate was ever going to agree to any international organsation that had more power than they did. (I'm not trying to equate Stalin and US Senators. Just noting that in 1946, neither of those parties was willing to accept any limit on their nations' ability to act however they chose.)
I do agree that if Russia didn't inherit the USSR's Council seat, it also didn't inherit the USSR's membership. On the other hand, North Korea wasn't part of the UN in 1950 and that didn't prevent the UN from engaging in military operations against it.
But let's be honest; if NATO wanted to engage in military action against Russia in 2022, they very much could. Basically, any country that COULD fight Russia doesn't need the UN's approval to do so.
Communist China "inherited" both the UN membership and the permanent seat on the SC from Nationalist China after they won their Civil War (and after some additional politics). Every country on the SC has had some form of "change of government" without losing their seat. Mostly this involves an election of a new head of state or head of government rather than a full blown revolution.
As for #2, the USSR had 3 seats on the UN, one for Russia, Ukraine, and Bulgaria, but only one on the Security council as the USSR.
It could be argued that the USSR split into the three nations who each hold claim to their respective seats and to the security council seat(which is backed up by the fact that Putin wants to reform the USSR, as per a essay he wrote, and believes that Ukraine must be assimilated in order to do so). Russia being the largest was given the seat out of hand, but has since rejected their duty to follow the Security council's guidelines as a member of it's permanent seat by violating them.
As both of the other two thirds of the USSR still exist and are part of the UN, should one of them not be given the USSR's seat after Russia abandoned the responsibility they claimed?
While nations are not strictly like people, political inheritance is historically a thing with monarchy. This situation can be viewed as a King dying and leaving behind 3 sons, without indication by word or law as to who should succeed him. Naturally, the throne(which is a seat) was given to the "eldest"(Russia, who is the biggest), while the two "younger"(aka smaller) sons only got territory and a seat at the discussion table.
So now that the holder of the throne is ignoring the duties they agreed to when claiming it, and trying to take out another inheretor, the other two heirs could press their claim to it.
I would also like to point out that as the permanent seats cannot be removed or _transfered to another country_, the seat cannot belong to Russia as it was given to the USSR(which Russia is not). Therefore Russia can be removed as custodian of the USSR's seat, as long as it is given to another country that was created from the USSR.
And as someone pointed out, China's seat also was inherited after their civil war. However, in that case, there was only one political entity to inherit the seat, so no real room to argue against their inheriting it.
@N Fels I didn't mean to imply that the transfer of the Chinese seats at both the UN and SC happened automatically, but that at some point in time the de facto situation on the ground was recognized by the international community and changed the representation in the UN.
I don't have any firm opinions on whether or how the change in status of China's representation in the UN should be applied to the current USSR vs. Russia situation.
Why wouldn’t Ukraine and Belarus and the Baltic States, and Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, etc. also inherit Permanent Member status? Did Ukraine lose Permanent Membership by voluntarily giving up their nukes?
12:00 There's another point here, a country is obliged to abstain on any dispute they're a party to, so in principle Russia's veto should have been counted as an abstention, though in practice that rule is never enforced.
Even if the Russians abstained, I have a feeling the Chinese would’ve vetoed it instead.
If it was enforced, how often would the US get to vote?
Or even attend.
This video should really be 3seconds long with the phrase: "Might means Right"
The US war against Iraq was declared illegal by the UN, and the US pretty much paid no mind to this!
Wait it was declared illegal and the US still did it and faced little consequence?
@@rafaeltiburcio6624 Yes, of course. Trump even pardoned war criminals
@@rafaeltiburcio6624 yep
international law didn't do anything about the American bombing of Somalia, or the man-made famine in Yemen caused by American sanctions, or the famine in Afghanistan caused by the 20 year war America waged on it. all of this is happening at the same time as the Russian invasion, and because they're war crimes done by America, no one seems to care.
@@sandrasim46 As the original comment says "might makes right". When you have the capacity to literally end life on earth as we know it other countries opinions don't really matter all that much.
For a war to be "illegal" means that there is a specific court that BOTH countries *fully recognize and obey* and there is some law that court has that was broken in that wars declaration.
As soon as either country chooses not to recognize any court, its rulings and directives, or to simply disagree with a ruling the illegal term simply no longer applies.
Exactly. And since Russia treats the U.N. like a joke and blocks all attempts at any real world progress anyway, they should be kicked out of the U.N. ASAP. Since Russia is not technically a member of NATO, this shouldn't be a problem.
@@michaelj.beglinjr.2804 You could say much the same about China, but they will will have each others backs if for no other reason than to keep the US, EU and other democratic powers from having any real control. This is a part of why the UN is so ineffectual at dealing with any of the things its supposed to be able to do as a "world government".
I don't see what difference it makes whether it's 'legal' or not - people are still going to get killed either way. Indeed, some people probably think all wars should be illegal!
"As it turns out, it's really hard to speak a dead language." As a student of linguistics and history, this made me choke on, and spit out, my tea. God damn that was funny 🤣.
The trouble with attempting to learning Latin is the inability to find a living Roman.
@@gorillaau The best we have are grammar nazis complaining. E.g. some guy wrote that the youth needs to stop with their soft C sounds and start using proper hard Cs, which got read as hard C being a K sound and a soft C being an S sound.
Trust old people to complain about the younger generation.
This does not take dialects into account, however.
@@JaharNarishma I am not surprised.
Actually one of the problems with speaking this particular "dead" language is that it is not really dead. It changed over time as it developed, and was pronounced differently in different parts of the Roman Empire, and in different parts of the post-Roman world.
Nowadays we have "Church Latin", "Scientific Latin", "Legal Latin", "Classical Latin", and many others with their own set of regional variations.
@@JaharNarishma There are also poems and such that clue scholars in on rhymes. The recreations of Shakespeare’s plays point out there were some pretty raunchy double entendres that get lost in modern performances.
Words can't explain how well-written, presented, and laid out video this is. Pure masterclass in accessibility and professionalism.
Very yes! 🔥
Professianilsm? This guy know anything about what's really going there and reasons of invasion.
"The strong do as they can, the weak suffer what they must" - Thucydides
Fact of the matter is that no laws of warfare and foreign aggression truly exist, only what individual nations agree to do and don't. There is no world government and no word police force ready to stop aggressors such as Putin.
Russian public?
Doesn't the US think of themselves as "leaders of the free world" and the "worlds police"? I for one think they should live up to their self-made egotistical titles. But, unlike Iraq, Ukraine doesn't have anything the US needs for the moment; until they do then bombs away! Of course, it doesn't matter if Ukrainian civilians are killed if the US joins... just "collateral damage" after all.
@@VoidDragon82 I find it rather ironic that in the same breath of saying America SHOULD intervine you criticize the last time we intervened. Hell let's go back further to Nam. We totally helped there right? America has never been good at getting in the middle of open conflicts.
@@VoidDragon82 The U.S. being the "world's police" is the same as your local police force only responding to certain, but not all, crimes. The U.S. is not obligated by any treaty I am aware of to intervene by armed force whenever atrocities happen. They, just like every other nation, have their own preferences and priorities. A military intervention in Ukraine would be unthinkable given the current stakes as it would quickly spiral out of control and result in WW3.
Well, the Russians aren't exactly shy of causing collateral damage. I am not sure if the massive civilian casualties at the hands of the Russian military is a result of incompetence or purposeful terror attacks.
@@youtubeuserandchef471 What about them?
Short answer: NO. And America has long held the view that international law was something others should abide to, but great powers like themselves should be exempt.
Yup. Just like the Israeli-Palestinian crisis sadly
Yep.
In a way, it can
The economic sanctions imposed on Russia are making the Russian people cry with outrage
It sucks that innocent russian people are being involved in the economic sanctions when many of them are in support of Ukraine and disavow the war
But the russian citizens are what keep Russia on its feet and without it's people, it will collapse very fast and have long term damaging effects on it's economy and country as a whole (In my opinion)
And International Law is really more like a guideline, as someones top comment is, hahaha
People can choose to follow it, enforce it, not follow it
End of the day, it's the people that decide things, not things in writing or whatever
If there were any jurisdiction over Russia, a lot of their military would probably be culpable for war crimes (mainly targeting civilians). Russia, like the US, however, is not a signatory to the ICC, because evidently accountability is for suckers.
I think that what a lot of people mean by "illegal war" is an _unjust_ war. Putin's _cassus belli_ is transparently false, despite his efforts to Gish Gallop it into legitimacy.
Another reason why it's called such is the fact that unlike Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, Ukraine is a significant resource (energy and farmland) that can put up a bit more than a token resistance.
The real reasons why Putin wanted to invade Ukraine are to kick out a government that's unwilling to be a colony of Russia, and to secure a land corridor to Crimea which Russia illegally annexed, because oil/gas has been discovered in that area. The northern attacks are little more than state terrorism; I'm betting much of the better-trained forces are trying to supply Crimea.
the whole situation is sad
@@DyslexicMitochondria hi
I love myself some "international law"
@@DyslexicMitochondria "Sad" is an understatement.
As putins casus belli was so ridiculous, he could've as well gone all GWB and say he's going to remove WMDs from ukraine.
As a subscriber who works in international law, I have been waiting a while for a video on it!
How's the environment at your "international law" office
The kind of environment that doesn’t allow me to talk about it.
So basically you're saying that the UN (with the exception of the Security Council) has the same level of legal power as Judge Judy.
Slightly less power, as the people still seem to respect JJ.
@@ChantelCarter-cc7cu Read the disclaimer on the show.
I did a master's in international law, and this was a good general overview
International law has the same energy as that meme that goes "If someone tries to mug you, just say no. Mugging is illegal."
A pretty good summary. I would add that although you said there is no "higher law" in international law there is the idea of "jus cogens" peremptory norms of international law that are *not* optional or dependent on state consent and cannot be derogated by treaty. Aggression is one of them.
Yes, but when a treaty, for instance, de facto derogates a ius cogens norm, there's really nothing anyone can do.
Always remember when in college and taking International Realtions my professor said first day 'International Law isn't, it is just a gentleman's agreement'
I've been studying international law since 2014. When talking about upholding the international law, States tend to enact "Self-help theory" in order to put the other party to the dispute comply with treaty or international regime. However that is traditional way. But it's not as easy as it seems. Particularly when discussing dispute settlement, the intention or willingness of parties to the dispute is one of significant aspects and the others are good faith, cooperation and subsequently compliance with international law principles. The other ways of upholading the international law (when one of the parties to the dispute is a member of SC) is the parties conclude a treaty with regard cooperation of settling dispute between them and the substance of that treaty could arrange the restorative procedures regarding the outcomes or aftermath of the dispute. Why? Because every member of SC has moral obligation to practice international principles such as Sovereign equality and peaceful co-existance or friendly relations. In addition, it's by their recommendation a State could become a party to the UN. Also they have moral obligation to practice human rights whilst they are the determiner to investigate whether or not the human rights are occurred. Like the UN Charter, it has shown only through intention and cooperation peace and security could be made.
Interesting. Good that you’re out there explaining how the law works in times like this.
Don't think laws are going to stop this, kinda obvious when it comes to warfare that short of diplomatic approaches the only way your going to stop it is thru force. Laws only work on people who care to follow them
@@Soldat177 part of the explanation in the video is talking about the enforcement. As you said, laws are worth less without enforcement. Enforcement is one of the 3 parts of laws. It is not separate from the law.
I read the original comment as "glad to become informed of how the international legal system works and now I have a better understanding of why the world is doing what it does against Russia".
Your reply got read as "you used this word in your comment and I will read it as you missing a big part of everything, consequently seeing you as ignorant".
Sorry, but I read malice and/or superiority complex from your response.
It is very hard to read tone, especially when many have English as a second language and words have several meanings.
I apologise for not trying to see the kindness in your response!
The idea of international law is still really new. As a result these ‘laws’ are really just guidelines for common discourse.also, anyone who thinks the UN is a world government isn’t someone to take seriously…
The UN serves a lot of purposes, actually taking actions is not one of them
@@pieppy6058 It literally can't. Sure, the idea of an all-encompassing institute to facilitate diplomacy among the most powerful nations is a noble one, but since, in the name of "equality" all of these countries have veto rights, the UN is simply incapable of doing anything about the most powerful nations, since if, say, China is breaking the rules, China can just veto discussing it and that's the end of it.
@@Warfoki The ability to self veto is hopefully severely limited in the future.
@@JaharNarishma And how would that happen? Any recommendation to change the veto system will be, you guessed it, veto'd. :P
@@Warfoki I hope. Hope doesn't need a plan. Nor does it need reason or feasibility.
Thank you for this video! I was hearing “illegal war” a lot and was wondering “aren’t all wars illegal?” And was hoping you would explain it! Thank you!
Me too. Like, war is a pretty much lawless/might-makes-right affair where breaking laws doesn't cause an automatic defeat of one side or something.
Kind of like an “illegal streetfight” or “illegal theft” or “illegal murder”.
He does explain it. Peacekeeping mission by the UN are legal. So is a country defending itself against an invasion. And other countries helping the country defending itself if it asked them to.
There is this concept of a "jus ad bellum" or "right to war," a set of criteria to determine whether a war is just. One of those is the "Responsibility to Protect," which is a global commitment endorsed by every member of the UN to prevent or stop things like genocide and crimes against humanity. This is basically what Russia used to justify the invasion, Putin claimed a genocide was taking place in Eastern Ukraine, alleging neo-nazis were killing ethnic Russians. While there has certainly been a conflict going on there for years, casualties are pretty even, making the justification hard to believe. Traditionally, victims of a genocide are relatively unarmed and powerless, which is not the case here, it's kinda like calling the American Civil War a genocide of Southerners.
So if the justification is baseless, then that would mean the war is illegal, just like people called the Iraq War illegal because the Bush administration alleged Saddam Hussein owned weapons of mass destruction, despite the complete lack of evidence for such claims.
@@Lobsterwithinternet there are legal versions of that. Except its called self defence
the blue and yellow tie is a nice touch
Well, at the very least it hampers Russia's ability to wage war and makes it more noticeable for the Russian population, many of which are still confused over if there even is a war.
This is such a suprise of a war that many of the Russian forces didn't knew it was a war until people started to shoot at them.
I love myself some "international law"
It's the latter that's having a noticeable effect. It's making it increasingly difficult for Russia to control the narrative in their own country, and for friendly nations to continue supporting Russia.
@@willsofer3679 Probably the main reason they're trying to cut Russia off from the rest of the world's internet. :s Putin and pals REALLY don't want to lose control of the narrative in their own country.
@@AegixDrakan And the ridiculous thing is that it's having the exact opposite effect. The "Barbara Streisand Effect", writ large on an international scale. The more you try to hide something big, the more it gets seen. They seem to still think that this is the 1980s, when information channels were limited.
The tie is a really nice touch
I’m so glad you made this video! It’s refreshing to have someone ACTUALLY knowledgeable on this subject, give an unbiased explanation of what the hell is going on. Please, for the love of all that is holy, keep bringing us content like this. The vast majority of people really have nothing to go on but the various slanted bits and pieces of what is dribbled to us through our media outlets. Please keep it up. Could you explain more about how sanctions work, what Putin can do in retaliation, and where the line is that if crossed would cause the western world to directly intervene.
I don't have good answers to most of that but I do know the last one. The red line to cross is any other border in Europe, especially the Western one of Ukraine. Or tactical nukes. If he uses them pre-emptively like a true madman then there's no point in being afraid that he'll use them to retaliate against NATO forces.
Most Common Reasons For Wars
A. Somebody did something somebody doesn't like or doesn't do something they want done, so they decide to put effort to either stop it or punish the them.
B. Somebody has something the other wants and they decide to either take it by force or punish them for having it.
C. Somebody is worried the other is going to do something to hurt or inconvenience them, so they choose to strike first.
D. Disrespect for the other group.
E. Hatred
It would be interesting to look at the legalities of insurance including damages caused by cyberattacks and whether cyber attacks also constitute a "act of war" which commonly voids the claim
It is an frightening consideration. Cyber attacks do have the potential to wreak havoc with utilities which could lead to damage to personal property and businesses as well as kill people (extended power outages leaving people unable to escape the heat or cold, for example). I suspect if something large scale did happen, insurance companies would refuse to pay up unless forced to by law. For instance, one thing that already happens is when a disaster is big enough that FEMA steps in, many people find their insurance refuses to pay up and instead tells them to call FEMA. That has left quite a few in a situation where they thought they were protected (why else pay insurance for all those years?) only to lose everything and get zero help from insurance and minimal help, if any, from the government.
I thought about that back in September 2001. If the terrible events of 9/11 were part of the "war against terrorism" would the insurance companies use that as a reason to not pay any claims?
I think what happened was that legaly "war against terrorism" was treated as a marketing or propaganda term, not as a legal description of the acts.
But since the insurance text usually exempts from payments acts of war "both declared and undeclared" the line between what is or is not considered an "act of war" for insurance purposes is very fuzzy
The Pentagon once met to discuss this very thing. The problem with cyber attack is that cyber attackers can spoof their location, or hack into the location and pivot attacks through them. So the Pentagon almost puts it in the category of spying, we know they hack, we can catch their operatives or pinpoint their locations, we attack them back with our own operatives but we consider it business as usual.
If state hackers were to cause major damage in a hacking attempt they would likely consider it an act of war, but it would have to be something like launching multiple nukes or destroying the entire US power grid.
Specific overrules general. So if both "this policy is void for acts of war" and "this policy is valid for cyberattacks" apply, it means that the policy is valid for cyberattacks even if they are also acts of war.
The international courts will provide a judgement on this when the time comes which will becone law. No point in wondering about it before then.
One thing you're wrong about, Russia is internationally recognized by all countries as the legal heir of the Soviet Union and had to legally pay all the debt incurred by the Soviet Union and honor all treaties made by the USSR, which is why Russia inherits the permanent seat on the UN security council, through legal treaties. This idea that Russia should not be a permanent council member is far-fetched...emotions aside to what's going on in Ukraine...
It's a also been 30 years of everyone just letting them be a permanent member of the security council
He didn’t state right or wrong he just stated the UN security counsel is just trying a loophole and see if it sticks
Long time Ukrainian subscriber, thank you very much for supporting us mr LegalEagle!
This has really widened my knowledge on international law , Thanks a lot
Superb to hear someone with an actual legal background explain the situation in a clear fashion.
I also love myse some "international law"
This is a biased person lmao
@@Sal3600 biased to which side?
@@Sal3600 +100 Rubles have been added to your account
and if that legal background giving person is blind to obvious fact like intl law was killed by US some time ago, is that backhround relevant?
8:57 I’m an idiot. When you said “mining of the Corfu channel and subsequent damage to British vessels” the first thing I pictured was some Albanians digging a huge hole then some ships sailing into it. 😐 When I realized my mistake, I felt… ashamed.
I’m glad I am not the only one who’s brain went that direction. I was confused about how the boats could have gotten damaged by mining until he worded it that they placed mines in the river...
@@jennagrace1534 😂🤣 I thought I was the only one too.
Lmao this is like telling someone that's about to kill you that they can't because murder is illegal.
Exactly, Russia doesn't care about some latte sipping arrogent lawyer telling them its illegal
@@FortniteOG420
You forgot to add millennial
It is really interesting seeing international law from other countries' perspectives.
I'm from Mexico, where on 2011 the international treaties were put on the same level as the constitution
We have the same undesrtanding here in Brazil. The congress have to vote, using the same rules of the constitutional amendement rite, so the treaty integrate our body of laws on the same hyerarchy as our constitution.
Indeed it's a noble idea, but there's also the flaw that this constitutional authority only applies to treaties your country recognizes, and ones which apply to the situation at hand.
For example; A trade agreement between Turkey and Ireland means nothing to Mexico. It doesn't even mention Mexico. Also, most treaties about "rules of war" and "war crimes" are meaningless today. They assume a formally declared state of war, which almost never happens anymore since we discovered "police action" and other euphemisms.
You mean Mexico, where the citizens and govt do not recognize the border with the usa and mexicans keep piuring in illegally
In the USA, treaties ratified by the US Senate are also “the Supreme Law of the Land”, equal to the Constitution. This has been the case back when the Constitution came into force, back in 1787 or so.
This is why the US President has signed a number of never-ratified treaties, because the Senate did not want to accept vague promises that the President was fooled into accepting, at least as the other side (not always the other party) was concerned.
In most countries is this way, and when adjudicating International disputes internal law is mostly left undiscussed
Using Russia's logic about the Security Council seat then Ukraine should have a seat as well since it was a part of the USSR as was Russia.
The whole single member veto idea was a bad one to begin with and was an insistence from the USSR because it was a minority government alignment in the Council (US, UK, and France being generally align countries with similar political systems and at the time the USSR despised China).
Problem with the first line is that when it was part of the USSR Ukraine (and Belarus) both had their own seats already. So giving either the USSR seat would not work as they were already members even if they were not independent states.
There were 3 seats in the UN for USSR: Ukranian SSR, Belorussian SSR and USSR itself, check history
@@alexwhite3830 In that case, wouldn't it be an argument to say that as Russia has rejected the duty to the Security council it claimed to have inherited from the USSR, the seat should go to another one of the USSR's heirs which still heeds the duties the USSR agreed to?
What's the point, even if a resolution is passed unanimously, it's non-binding. The UN is pointless in regards to major military powers (who obviously operate on there own terms).
What I question is why a permanent member on the security council would have veto power present if it would be a clear conflict of interests.
My guess is that it was less in pursuit of justice, and more to reflect these nations had the strongest militaries. Having a veto would prevent them being ganged up on and reduce incentives to go rogue. This would further incentivise the permanent council members to find a solution to a crisis they all agree with - that way they none would have a reason to start invading. Basically the west and USSR agreeing to not reshape the post WW2 world order in a way one would find unacceptable.
Clearly this hasn't worked. The veto has instead been used to avoid accountability when flouting the established rules, and Putin perceives Russia as having been wronged on the international stage, deciding wanton military aggression is the best way to achieve his goals - exactly the decision the UN was built to keep nations from making
@@polivarz6191 prevent people ganging up on each other sure, but I highly doubt they thought it'd reduce the incentive to go rogue, the veto power is only the ability to go rogue, 1 country in 5 can say I don't like this and the other 4 have to watch.
@@rinzzler366 yes and no.
According to UN rules, surprise attacks are, if not banned, strongly frowned upon, and a UN mandate is normally needed for foreign operations (such as the west obtained, then abused and went beyond, during the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya). There isn't afaik any mechanism to stop a country from ignoring these rules, other than they will be hated and the threat one of the big hitters on the security council deciding to be world police. The only incentive for the permanent security council is, theoretically, the world order they built benefits them, so they have no reason to upend it
The secret ingredient, is crime
These nations want to have their cake and eat it too. Force everyone else to play by the rules while they dont. Which they can only get away with because of their powerful economies, connections and militaries. Russia doing their shady shit now, but the US did their shit in the 2000s to 2020, not to mention China's re-education camps on Uighurs. All of them are slimy one way or another.
The thing is, even if the Law said they should stop, we have seen time and time again that just cause the law or everyone else say they should doesn't mean they actually will. Take for instance the United States sanctions of Cuba. They are in breach of the law with a super-majority demanding that they end, and yet they don't. At the end of the day, laws are nothing more than some words on a paper.
At the end, the only true law is law by Might. Humanity is trully doom
@@ericquiabazza2608 Couldn't help but snicker at that comment. A funny coincidence where I have just finished reading Full Metal Daemon Muramasa, a story where the Law of Might (its really called that in the story) plays a pretty significant role.
@@matteste most likly because is a reality, you cant enforce judgment over anyone stronger (in several senses, fisically, skill and wealth) unless they are humble enough to acept it.
in situations like this laws literally do nothing until after its over
Yeah, laws exist but it doesn't stop people breaking them
Same like when the US did it
The hope is that there will be trials when this is over. Putin charged as a criminal at the ICC will be great.
I am not a law student or a lawyer but I love watching your 15+ mins videos on all subjects. You should have another channel explaining introduction to law or something for your viewers. Good job.
So here’s a question: if the Soviet Union was the member of the UN security council, and Russia just assumed they had that seat after the Soviet Union collapsed, technically couldn’t Ukraine also claim the exact same thing since it was part of the Soviet Union just like Russia was?
Ukraine had its own separate seat when the Soviet Union existed. USSR wanted to have more allies in the UN
Russia is the legal successor state to the USSR, Ukraine is the legal successor to the Ukraine SSR
Russia was granted the official international continuity to the USSR, I believe, at least in this regard. Dont quote me on that one, though. I am a 2nd semester law student in Austria, I just started international law.
To inherit the legacy of the Soviet Union, you first have to inherit also its massive debts and international obligations. Ukraine didn't take on any of the downsides so they can't claim any of the upsides either.
@@jacklovejoy5290 that was never actually officially agreed upon.
You forgot to mention the covenant sign between Russian and Ukrainian countries. It says that for return of nuclear missiles Ukrainian territory will never be invaded. That makes a new aspect of the conflict.
I didn’t go to law school but I took undergrad international law classes in the universities that I attended. I had to create a presentation on the codification of convention to procedures in the ICC. One of the hardest readings I had to do.
“What does it mean for a war to be illegal?”
Ooh, ooh, pick me, teacher, I know! That’s like when the US invaded Iraq under false pretenses
There were plenty of other good reasons for intervention to occur in Iraq. Like the leader constantly committing crimes against humanity against their own people!
The Bush Doctrine is a blight on American military history and foreign policy. But we’re talking about Ukraine now.
@@mondocool5670 …and then we committed crimes against humanity against those same people… does “Abu Ghraib” ring a bell? Plus, the war inadvertently led to the creation of the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL)
@@shamelesshussy Just providing another example of a criminal act of war, I’m not trying to justify Putin’s invasion of Ukraine one bit
@@shamelesshussy exactly! I've been trying to make this point every time someone says "well what about ...". It's an uphill battle 😕
Was that a Ukrainian flavored tie? Amazing, as a Ukrainian I was happy to see that.
I read it as Ukrainian flavored tea, and wondered
a) what tea
b) how does Ukraine taste like
@@kamil118 Ukraine tastes like much better and smooth vodka.
The only caveat I'll make here is that I've been told that even when Ukraine was part of the USSR it was still its own "state" much like Texas is a state in the United States and had every right according to old treaties to establish its sovereignty once the USSR collapsed.
The dissolution of the Soviet Union was an agreement of the Ukrainian SSR, the Belarussian SSR, and also the Russian SSR. Technically Ukraine and Russia are both equal successors of the Soviet Union.
in the original conception of the USSR, it was a confederation of republics enjoying broad independence - while that didn't hold, there were still some artefacts of that, such as every state having its own national language and criminal code
@Leander Herman In theory, yes. But you can leave the EU if you want to, or just ignore orders from Brussels.
The USSR just send tanks and soldiers to kill protesters and make sure the local government does what it's told by Moscow. Even in countries that weren't technically part of the USSR.
@Leander Herman ballsy pfp
@@Yora21 capitalist propaganda
There actually are/were ostensibly legally binding agreements, the Budapest memos -A security agreement between Ukraine and US/UK/Russia; in exchange for post Soviet nuclear disarmament.
Which Russia is violating by invading Ukraine.
In the list of sources of US law, treaties should have been included: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and *all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States*, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
Tip: You need to add the second asterisk AFTER the comma, or the enclosed text will not be made boldface. There must be a space both before and after formatting symbols.
@@Narrator007 I just wanted the asterisks, but thanks anyway.
@@Narrator007
Easy mistake to make. I've done that before as well, from both sides.
What i consider incompetent Gunpowder-Nations:
USA, China, Russia, North-Korea and now, just new to the Friends-Group, Afghanistan.
Those are Gunpowder-Barrels that need to be stopped at all Price.
So: Lets do nothing.
I'm sure 'Some More News', the RUclipsr, will also agree. It's not like he and others have Improvement-Advice and such-and-such.
But even ignoring him anyway: Lets do Nothing.
Another N-Korea has literally just been founded and literal Barbarians rule over Afgahnistan now, so whatever.
@@Narrator007 If you're giving formatting tips I would *love* to know how to make italics and strikeout in a comment.
Finally a video I can somewhat understand without thinking too hard as a Dutch law student
You are Dutch? So you have a PLAN!(sorry i couldn't resist)
@@nicolovoci7265 I'm confused. What is this in reference to?
@@lunakoala5053 Red Dead Redemption 2( Dutch van der Linde)
6:41 On a completely unrelated note can I just say that I adore this stock footage.
I love the fact the only person wearing a hat is the Australian and it's a Akubra too, it brings me joy.
As a Roman general once said "don't quote us laws when we have swords"
don't quote us laws when we have nuke. - putin
objection: the international law of the eu is in fact above the law of the constitution of it´s member countries. austria for example had to vote for it that they would be "below" eu-law and only after that the law of their constitution (i might´ve gotten some terms wrong but i hope it is clear what i meant to say)
It's not quite international though, but a supranational federation of countries in Europe. EU law is indeed above member state law (and so are the courts) because the member states have delegated a part of their sovereign powers to the EU by changing their constitutions and laws.
Except the EU still cannot directly enforce their laws in members states. There is no EU police or EU military. The only thing it can do is withhold payments to the member states and demand fines, but the member states can still ignore these (just look at Poland and their coal mine dispute)
@@M0rtanius I mean, they can, you've said it yourself, they fine non-compliant member states... Which is also how our own police forces would enforce most laws domestically, if you speed/litter/etc. you get a fine. The EU apparatus is just doing this at a much larger scale
(side note, though not involved in the enforcement of laws applicable to member states, there is actually kind of an EU police force: Europol. Though more of a collaboration between all the national police forces, they are in fact considered a law enforcement agency in-and-of-themselves)
It should be added though that this only applies to the parts that the nations delegated to the EU. Regarding laws that the countries have not delegated to the EU those laws are above the EU's decisions.
Thank you for this clear explanation of an important subject. It's an embarrassment that we are not part of the ICC, just as it is an embarrassment that SCOTUS is not subject to the Federal Code of Ethics which governs Federal Judiciary.
@@skyealexander4605 a focus on reform would be more productive, though I agree that those are the most dangerous countries
The tie is a nice touch, Eagle.
I never though international law necessarily mattered in the grand scheme of things: What mattered is how international states responded to any agreements. It’s the principles behind it.
No country, aside from Russia, is prepared to be sanctioned into economic oblivion.
"No country, aside from Russia, is prepared to be sanctioned into economic oblivion." There is no Law between States. The Economy is going to be changed. The CCP in Asia and something new in the West. China and Russia bought into a system that is going to gatekeep them both out. Cashless and probably coinless too. Less interconnected and less interdependent.
Iran has had 1500 sanctions since 2006 and still isn't in "economic oblivion".
@@electricspeedkiller8950 Iran has Oil.
Iran says hello.
Great video, as a currently studying lawyer in the making i loved the fast pace as opposed to usual international law lectures. Though i must point out that you failed to mention "jus cogens" norms as higher in the hierarchy of international law norms, which are norms "from which no derrogation is permitted" such as torture and use of agression and so on. Otherwise great video!
What i consider incompetent Gunpowder-Nations:
USA, China, Russia, North-Korea and now, just new to the Friends-Group, Afghanistan.
Those are Gunpowder-Barrels that need to be stopped at all Price.
So: Lets do nothing.
International law: everyone does what the nuclear powers feel particularly strongly about.
And when the nuclear powers disagree, everyone prays for a peaceful resolution. MAD works only until someone is crazy enough to push the button.
Russia is not a successor of USSR, because Russia left USSR on 8 December 1991, but the last country that left USSR was Kazakhstan, on 16 December 1991. So it's Kazakhstan is successor of USSR, not the Russia.
International Law is like those "no trespassing" signs that skater kids ignore when doing tricks on empty lots.
I think when the answer to the question "oh yeah? you and what army?" is "that one right there", we may have escalated past the court system. just saying.
People got so used to Putin being a shirtless memelord that they collectively forgot he's actually a complete monster.
All the journalists and the like who’ve just “disappeared” or had “accidents”
Pewdiepie should review him.
He never, ever let other heads of state forget that though.
For example Angela Merkel has a dog phobia. Putin always let his huge dog out, when she was there, took it along to meet her, let it run around unleashed and jump all over her.
This guy is an absolute sadist.
@@JuMiKu I didn't know that..
I start laughing when someone starts talking about "international law" and "illegal invasion." What, do they expect UN peacekeepers to invade Russia? *When Russia has a veto on the security council?*
Good luck with that. You cant even legally enforce the laws, and that is before we even get to the practicalities of getting a multinational coalition to invade the country that is producing energy for a large portion of that coalition.
No, if someone wants to do something about this it will have to be unilateral. And the only countries that even could are China and the USA. China never would and no one in the US has the stomach for a land war in Russia.
So, in a nutshell, only the security council has enough authority to do anything about this, and they can’t do anything about it unless the “Russia has no seat” movement kicks off. Got it
NATO could intervene any time it wanted to. The thing is, as soon as NATO intervenes, Russia is at war with the US and World War 3 happens.
NATO - and many other states - are funneling massive amounts of weapons and ammunition to Ukraine. Foreign volunteers are clearly going into Ukraine to help fight. Unlike the Spanish Civil War, no state has forbidden their citizens from assisting (to my knowledge, anyway).
It seems pretty clear to me that the US and NATO are hoping to turn this into Russia's Vietnam - keep Putin tied up trying to fight in Ukraine so he doesn't invade anywhere else and we don't end up nuking the planet. Which kind of sucks for Ukraine, but also seems to me to be the least bad option at this point.
Even then, there's still issues. 1) If Russia didn't inherit the USSR's seat, then they also aren't members of the UN anymore and would no longer be subject to the UN's authority. 2) The security council doesn't have dedicated troops. They still have to rely on donated troops from member countries.
@@randomstuff-qu7sh Enh, as I said on another comment there's precedent for the UN taking military action against a non-member in defence of a member: the Korean War. North Korea didn't join the UN until the 1990s. The real problem is that unless the US, China, or maybe the EU as a whole or India is willing to put boots on the ground, no-one has enough military strength to really take on Russia; and all of those options mean war between nuclear powers, which probably ends badly.
@@randomstuff-qu7sh Makes me wonder if we should make one. As in, take a part of the militaries of each member country and designate them permanent security council peacekeepers or something
why the hell does loser nations like USA and UK have a seat there anyway? Abolish Veto, end of story.
It's really easy to see why the people love Zelensky. He's been everything you could want in a leader through all of this. It would be kind of like Stephen Colbert or Jon Stewart being president and being the best president we've had in a long time. It's so sad what the Ukrainian people are going through. But the inspiring stories keep coming: a couple getting married in battle gear or a grandma making molotovs, I have nothing but respect for them. Someone in Moscow needs to stand up to Putin. His own citizens and soldiers don't want anything to do with the war. This is all happening because of one man's warped world view.
Funnily enough Zelensky's poll numbers were dropping a lot before the war, mainly due to a lack of action taken against corruption.
@@albaniaalban Well it seems this war made his numbers go up 😂
Your RUclips name is my experience on the porcelain throne after a Chipotle lunch.
@@cmath6454 lol I've heard similar. I've been called hot sauce, whiskey, a contradiction, and yes, diarrhea before.
He'll likely be remembered by Ukrainians in much the same way as Americans remember Washington or Lincoln.
Unfortunately, as we've seen through history, there are only three ways to get accountability through law: respect of laws in general, respect for the spirit/intent of the law, and threats of force under color of law. As we can plainly see in international law, the P5 members of the UNSC (especially the US and Russia) don't have respect for law or respect for the spirit/intent of the law, and because they are members of the P5 they are immune to most consequences for that lack of compliance. At the very least, Russias lack of presence within some key unions and alliances (in particular, the EU) allows for mild economic consequences to use for compliance, but if a country like the US were to invade some sovereign nation, for example maybe Iraq or Afghanistan, they'd be immune from consequences because of the EU's dependence on the US and the US's role as P5 member of the UNSC and the de facto head of NATO
The word is respect.
UNSX OORAAA! Am I right Marines?!
The US got unanimous UNSC approval for Afghanistan in 2001. There's no comparison with what's happening in Ukraine.
please make more videos on international law, this was very informative and helpful