Украина и кризис международной правовой системы

Mar 24, 2014 Jeffrey D. Sachs

НЬЮ-ЙОРК – Действия России в Украине представляют собой серьезное и опасное нарушение международного права. В 1994 году, Украина согласилась отказаться от ядерного оружия, доставшегося ей в наследство от Советского Союза в обмен за официальное обязательство со стороны Соединенных Штатов, Соединенного Королевства и России защитить территориальную целостность и суверенитет Украины. Россия в настоящее время нарушила это обещание, что было не только во вред Украине, но и подорвало международную правовую основу для предотвращения распространения ядерного оружия.

Если Россия не поменяет курс - что маловероятно в ближайшее время - глобальные последствия склонны быть серьезными. США и Европейский союз введут санкции, ослабляя экономику России и мировую экономику, а также разжигая еще больше напряженности и национализма. Ошибки на одной стороне или другой могут привести к насильственной катастрофе. Стоит лишь вспомнить спираль высокомерия и просчета, который привел к началу Первой мировой войны, сто лет назад в этом году.

Насколько не страшен украинский кризис, общее игнорирование международного права в последние годы не следует упускать из виду. Не уменьшая серьезность последних действий России, следует отметить, что они происходят в контексте неоднократных нарушений международного права со стороны США, ЕС и НАТО. Каждое такое нарушение подрывает хрупкую структуру международного права, а также рискует бросить мир в беззаконную войну где всех против всех.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

US President-elect Joe Biden may have promised a “return to normalcy,” but the truth is that there is no going back. The world is changing in fundamental ways, and the actions the world takes in the next few years will be critical to lay the groundwork for a sustainable, secure, and prosperous future.

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world’s foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads and book reviews, Say More contributor interviews, The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

Jeffrey D. Sachs

Writing for PS since 1995
329 Commentaries

Jeffrey D. Sachs, Professor of Sustainable Development and Professor of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University, is Director of Columbia’s Center for Sustainable Development and the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. He has served as Special Adviser to three UN Secretaries-General. His books include The End of Poverty, Common Wealth, The Age of Sustainable Development, Building the New American Economy, and most recently, A New Foreign Policy: Beyond American Exceptionalism.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 27 in all 27 Comments on this article

Renata Davidson Jul 19, 2014

I fully agree with Carl Buzawa comment. "The UN's security Council is stymied by the Permanent member's veto power". International Law is not working. I hope, we don't need another world war to fix it.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Carl Buzawa Apr 25, 2014

Professor Sachs-The problem you do point out , is that ultimately no major power follows international law when it believes its core national interests are at stake. This obviously hurts respect for international law

The problem you don't point out is that international institutions are , at best a mixed bag. The World Court by and large works as it is supposed to and its decisions tend to be followed. The UN's security Council is stymied by the Permanent member's veto power-whether in regard to the US vetoing any meaningful sanctions on Israel or Russia's efforts on behalf of Syria etc etc. . Meantime the General Assembly gives an equal vote to countries like Togo as they do to the US, China or Russia--and it is an open secret that many of the smaller countries vote on issues based on foreign aid or "gifts" to leaders. Even such institutions like UNESCO, whose aims are pure, give leadership positions to vicious dictatorships like Syria or Iran just because they represent voting blocs. Under those circumstances it is impossible to see a serious national world leader with a needed military give any real regard to international law in the field of security. Instead bi lateral treaties or mutual defense pacts are the only things that seem to matter.
Hence International law is vital for commerce but almost irrelevant for the practice of security.
That's unfortunate, but reality nonetheless.

I say this with regret as a lawyer with a lot of international experience--
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
MD MORTAZA Apr 1, 2014

An excellent and timely realization from Jeffrey Sachs. I remember my debate on the necessity of the UN Security Council with a Chinese friend back in 2005, when he mentioned that, just like a country needs police force to ensure security, the world needs similar policing system, and the UN Security Council acts like that. I strongly protested his argument by saying that on what basis these countries were chosen for policing. He couldn't give a justified answer. Now i think, my friend should read this article and review his (bad) arguments. The world doesn't need a policing system which is based on their nuclear power, and itself cannot respect the international law. The world needs more responsible power to ensure its safety, and, as Jeffrey Sachs said, it should be upheld by the United Nations, not by few powerful nations.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Timothy Williamson Mar 30, 2014

Jeffrey, great article. I agree. What can we do to ensure that the US seeks accoutability for itself and the rest of the world at the UN and the ICC.? These bodies need to have more authority to universally enforce accountability. How do we do it? Would it help to have an elected parlimentary assembly at the UN?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Dean Mitchener Mar 29, 2014

The thing here is that most normal people could read the writing on the wall....When were we going to cross the bridge of challenging the status quo? We in the west have curtailed the question for so long using all manner of smoke and mirrors. the problem is the world is now made of smoke and mirrors and folks just want answers to questions they don't understand. Global instability is a product of a lack of truthful explanation of the right to agree to disagree. Such is it with gay marriage, homosexuality, drug addiction and the various degradation of base morals and principals. There is only one road from here and its not pretty. A new base of totalitarian solutionists will rise from the ashes of near annihilation and take us closer to the abyss than we have ever been.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Dean Mitchener Mar 29, 2014

This is of course the basis of all normal peoples disagreement with the wests duality principal. We all want to believe we are the good guys, only....its not compatible with democracy, because democracy is not compatible with the truth of that fundamental law of might is right. to the victor go the spoils and most importantly the base of all those mentioned before.......fortune favours the bold or simply put, fortune favours those who are not lazy and that is the ultimate trick of survival. This is just nature working against nurture.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Edward Ponderer Mar 26, 2014

Professor Sachs use of the term "crossroads" concerning the nature of this crisis in internal law is quite insightful, and I think should be expanded in how to see the entirety of the crises that we are presently suffering in everything from economics and water resources, down to the stability of community, family and education.

For indeed, the Greek root of crisis is literally "opportunity" -- represented by an x-like character in the Greek alphabet, it literally is a crossroads.

There is a very interesting film, already winning some awards just from its online presence, on just this very perspective. It had a theater premier in Los Angeles, I believe, just a few days ago, but is still available in full here: www.crossroadsfilm.com/

I would highly recommend it, because the crisis--the crossroads--in international law is just a part of the whole issue, and can never be solved except as a whole. Treating symptoms without treating the underlying disease, not only does not rid the underlying disease, but gives it a chance to further fester and make itself know through ever-new aspects of malady.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Gerry Hofman Mar 26, 2014

Thank you very much Jeffrey for spelling all this out so clearly and so concise, especially since so many of the articles here seem to be aimed at belittling or denying many of the points you have made. And he is right, had we taken International Law more seriously a great deal of suffering could already have been avoided, and some current practices would have to be abandoned. The voices of those who want to have things their own way seem to be aimed mostly at vilifying their opponents and using force and persuasion to make the international community ignore their International law. The vilifying process is already underway on both sides with Hillary Clinton comparing Putin to Hitler, and the Russians comparing the Kiev revolutionaries to fascists. To prevent unilateral action by Russia Europe could go and match it's army with a similar size on the other side, but in doing so might find out that they are not at all welcome in eastern Ukraine, who would much rather go over to the Russian side. Perhaps Europe needs to conduct an independent investigation there before Russia gives them another referendum, to find out what the real sentiment on the ground is.
- Vidvuds Beldavs Mar 26, 2014
  
  Dr. Hofman, what is the difference between President Putin sending Russian troops to Crimea to "protect" Russians and Fuhrer Hitler sending German troops to the Sudetenland in 1938 to "protect" Germans? In what way is Hillary Clinton's comparison wrong?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Zsolt Hermann Mar 25, 2014

I think the most important part of the article is this one:
"...International law itself is at a crossroads. The US, Russia, the EU, and NATO cite it when it is to their advantage and disregard it when they deem it a nuisance..."
We are indeed at crossroads.
We usually look at a "crisis" as a negative event, although if analyzed properly they could provide a stepping stone for a next, better level on our evolution.
We could have done the same with the economical, financial crisis which is still ongoing, but so far we wasted the chances as we are not willing to make the required fundamental changes.
Now again, although the recent events surrounding the Ukraine open up very dangerous possibilities, they provide the space for scrutiny, where we as a global, human community could decide how we want to progress.
The situation is unprecedented, we simply have no experience we can call upon.
Our world has never been globally interconnected and so interdependent that with every move, action or even thought we immediately influence the whole system. The Ukrainian crisis shows how much the neighboring or even further located countries depend on each other, how the bitter US- Russia relationships could spill over to the Middle East, Far East and so on. The world economy is also completely interlinked and any country "going down" would pull many or most others with them.
Whatever revision we make for a new "International Law" has to take into consideration the natural of the integral system we evolved into.
In an integral system there are only cogwheels, cells, organs working mutually, closely together. There cannot be a "leader", "policeman", or a "broker".
Every decision has to be taken in an equal and mutual manner, around well moderated and organized round table discussion where each and every directly and indirectly involved parties have to be invited.
We never truly tried this before, we never tried to rise above personal or even national opinions, personal or national interests, trying to find a common, mutual point we can build on.
But before we did not have the motivation for it.
Today we still hate each other, we still would like to grab what the others have and even kill them. But at the same time we completely, utterly depend on those we want to kill or exploit.
We are chained together with unbreakable ties on multiple levels.
If we want to avoid a global explosion from this unprecedented, paradoxical situation, we have no other choice but we have to learn, mutually together, how to cooperate, negotiate, make decisions in a global, integral system.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jay Tkachuk Mar 25, 2014

I agree with many of the authors points, and disagree with some. One thing is clear, however - international law is the only mechanism preventing another outbreak of violence on a global scale. As such, this mechanism must be maintained and updated when necessary. For instance, the UN Security Council has become clearly dysfunctional, since a lot of the actions it is supposed to mitigate are caused by the members of the council. I would propose a mechanism that would temporarily exclude any voting by initiators of conflict. It's a limited measure, as it would not address vested interests such as those of Russia in Syria and Iran, or of the US in Middle East, Israel, etc., but in cases of clear aggression it would allow the council to operate, instead of simply stalling.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Vidvuds Beldavs Mar 25, 2014

While I agree with much of Sachs’s article there are multiple points where I do not agree with him. There is a major distinction between the disaster that was the invasion and occupation of Iraq and the conflict in Afghanistan. The US initially had support for action in the latter even from Iran. Subsequently both China and Russia supported US action there and now both are pursuing economic objectives in Afghanistan. I read Strobe Talbott’s take on Putin, which primarily dealt with Kosovo. I believe Talbott is correct. It is not merely that there were many killed in Kosovo, the genocide against the Kosovars was a reality. While not a black and white situation in international law, the Clinton administration was severely criticized for its inaction in the face of the killing. US and NATO action was supported by the EU. I was extremely opposed to the handling of the Libyan conflict. Russia had agreed to a no fly zone and Russia was profoundly snubbed by the foreign policy leadership of Clinton. Obama was leading from behind on that one, while Clinton led the charge. I believe there are indications that Putin has a profound personal animosity towards Clinton and would do his best to affect the US election in 2016 to prevent her being elected. I see the foreign policy successes of Kerry as part of this process. Syria appears to be a clear example of Russian meddling more than US meddling. Assad appeared willing to negotiate with the reasonable demonstrators early in the game, before the civil war. As in Kiev so in Syria provocateurs sabotaged the process. Whether they are FSB, GRU or some unknown branch of Russian intelligence does not matter. The finger prints seem discernable much as the apartment bombings in Russia that were blamed on Chechens.

I believe that Russia has been genuine in contributing to the strengthening of the international system. After all, its current wealth derives from this system. However, Iraq and Libya both showed the US acting against the interests of the international community. Perhaps the US leadership was sincere in its attempts to rid the world of despots, but particularly in the case of Libya, American action resulted in a disaster. The country with the highest literacy rate, best health care, relatively stable society was destabilized affecting the development of the entire continent. I believe one part of the calculations regarding Ukraine was that another disaster was on its way. If Russia stops with Crimea, and stops the provocation of the situation in Eastern Ukraine, there will be a chance. It is encouraging that Ivanov met with the foreign minister of Ukraine in Kiev. The US left a failed state in Afghanistan when the Soviet Union fell and American support for Afghanistan precipitously stopped. The US has now paid its dues, which I believe is acknowledged by countries in the region, and there is a chance for Afghanistan to emerge. The Chinese, Russians and Iranians will move in, but will not further destabilize the government. So the Obama policy will have contributed to a long term success.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Edward Campbell Mar 25, 2014

Any Anglophone defenders of American hypocrisy ever hear of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo? It codified US expropriation of Texas, California, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Wyoming and Colorado - at the end of the Mexican War in 1848.

All Hispanic families know the history here in a region that still often approaches a population that is 50% Spanish-speaking. Organizations still exist albeit minimal dedicated to restoring that theft to Hispanic Americans if not to Mexico.

Please, save the hypocrisy for church - like every other American.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Paul Daley Mar 25, 2014

Everything in this article is right except the remedy. It will be very difficult to construct a system of international law so long as the United States is such an out-sized player and its national security policy is so easily influenced by ethic lobbies. It might help if we could ask our representatives to recuse themselves from issues on which their judgment has been compromised, or at least ask them to identify potential conflicts of interest before they vote or act on individual issues. But ethics laws on those lines in the public sphere are probably more than we can hope for
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
hari naidu Mar 25, 2014

In the long term, Crimea is more than a name attributed to a region; it is all about Vladimir Putin's diplomatic policy, Russia's international profile, and its internal image.
The Crimean peninsula has always been a political hot potato, and a regular centre of historical disputes. Russian President Vladimir Putin's speech in the Kremlin on March 18 added a new chapter to Crimea's history. Putin's speech was not so much a statement of his position, as a political declaration on how Russia will revive under his rule.
In addition to its general strategic importance, the Crimean peninsula is the military port for the Black Sea Fleet, and therefore the key pivot by which Russia controls the Black Sea and access to the Mediterranean Sea. Crimea is a touchstone of the relationship between Russia and Ukraine, which itself forms a significant part of Russian history. During the period when Russia had a warm relationship with Ukraine, Russia’s garrison in Crimea was considered as a link between the two countries. But in this dispute Russia cannot respect the wishes and interests of both Ukraine and Crimea. Therefore, in the face of huge pressure from the West, Putin has made his choice of sides. The result of the Crimean referendum has placed the U.S and Europe in a difficult position.
It is clear that Russia's revival will not proceed without difficulties and challenges. Putin's swift response to the Ukrainian political handover shows how close the Ukrainian issue comes to the core of Russia’s vital interests. Crimea's new union with Russia can be considered as an important declaration that Russia will act to defend what it perceives to be its interests and its security.
It seems that in Putin's eyes, Russia's revival must be ready to take on any challenge to its security interests from its neighbors, and especially from Europe. In cases such as Georgia and Ukraine, Russia's 21st century renaissance has already faced challenges from countries of the former Soviet Union. The West recognizes Putin as a powerful politician, but neither the U.S. nor the Western European countries can know exactly what strategies and measures he has in mind. Crimea's new union with Russia marks the beginning of a new game between Russia, the U.S. and Europe.
In the short term, no party wants to take any action that might trigger armed conflict; in the long term Crimea may prove to be much more than a territorial annexation by Russia - it is also a manifestation of Putin's diplomatic strategy and a symbol of the country's political dignity and successful image.
The article is edited and translated from 《克里米亚入俄：一份俄罗斯复兴宣言？》, source: The Beijing News, author: Shang Han
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jorge Simao Mar 25, 2014

This article is silly and naive.
The rules of the law (international or otherwise), are only applicable until the entity responsible to preserve it in a particular jurisdiction comply with it. Once the enforcer of the law actively and repeatedly violates the framework that is set to protected and impose in the first of place, the rules change - from the rule of law to the rules of war. Failing to have this is mind is denying people the right to fight for there lives - which nobody tolerates. War exists my friend - because the framework of law becomes broken.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Confuciusmaster lee Mar 25, 2014

GOD KNOWS INTERNATIONAL LAW WHICH IS DOMINATED BY SOME POLITICS.WE WOULD BETTER ASK GOD TO EXPLAIN THE CONFRONTATION BETWEEN WEST AND EAST,BETWEEN YOU AND ME,BETWEEN THE POOR AND THE RICH.
LOL!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bert Kerkhof Mar 24, 2014

International law conforms to great minds and actors who lead the world in development from poverty to prosperity. Above all : if development is without victims, it is sheer luck.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bert Kerkhof Mar 24, 2014

Exploitation of mineral resources also generate rapid imbalances and stressed growth especially if populations benefits from the yield are poor in the area where richness make fossil winnings.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bert Kerkhof Mar 24, 2014

Study of aviation disaster such as the MH370 and detailed news of the various problems that led to it, provides the necessary insights for an extensive area. Accurate diagnosis gives concise, summary discussion material for various security experts in many fields. Precise figure out the causes of the disaster prevents the need for privacy-sensitive research on Malaysia Indonesia Vietnam Iran grounds and irritating drones. Thus safe business and relations improve.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bert Kerkhof Mar 24, 2014

Prickly hits are felt in long-distance battle where people are strangers against each other. Around the Brussels Days this weekend it is heard that one want to promote peace in Syria by giving some autonomy to local boards. Talk about demarcation lines is premature, if one has a daily local business scope instead of hateful mission between regions, rests on the street is achieved.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bert Kerkhof Mar 24, 2014

Military visibility of Nato in eastern Ukraine : in the spirit and letter of the Charter of the United Nations, freedom of modern people in Ukraine and free trade between Ukraine and the world deserves a chance. In the international community a role for Russia is discussed in maintaining peace in Syria and the rest of the Middle East. This justifies some Russian defense for the Black Sea. It is wrong that the Russian military looks to Ukraine in the north. Establishment of a no-fly zone for Russian planes above Ukraine by United Nations HQ is desired.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bert Kerkhof Mar 24, 2014

The human development of Ukraine is at a high level and the billion dollar credit that John Kerry brings to Maidan square, speaks American confidence. The confidence that Europe has with Ukraine is even greater. Europe has 15 times more trade with Russia than the U.S. has. Trade sanctions of U.S. havoks against Russia, however european sentiment will prevail. Germany supports the liberal change in Ukraine and Dutch diplomacy can help to restore confidence.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bert Kerkhof Mar 24, 2014

Between 1961 and 1992 were nuclear warheads at the Havelterberg in Drenthe. First for the "honest-john' rocket, later on the" lance' rocket that could carry the W70-warhead (neutron). On Christmas day there were peace actions. Tonight dutch regional television shows pictures of how 'great-power politics' was part of everyday life for people in Drenthe. The Nuclear warheads were removed 1992. But as Ukraine, Drenthe never got solemn commitment to protect its territorial sovereignty. In fact, as in Ukraine, control NATO affairs by drenth people is low considering how the issue is alive among the people.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
hari naidu Mar 24, 2014

Jeffery (and Solana) are reflecting on crisis of international law and its implication to de jure national sovereignty under UN Charter. (WTO) Globalization has more or less obliterated the hitherto relevance of de jure international case law as it applies to sovereign national boarders and frontiers. Example: Daily FX money market exchange - in access of $T5.0 or more - across all sovereign national frontiers.

First, however we’ve a constitutional lawyer sitting in the WH formulating unilateral economic sanctions and drone strikes – without impunity – i.e. not sanctioned by UNSC. EU applies US trade/financial sanctions against Iran - now Russia - to support its US ally. But they’re unilateral and subject to court action, if so desired, at Hague International Court. China and India, for example, don’t support it. Putin also acknowledged their national support when speaking on Crimea to the joint session of Russian Duma in the Kremlin.

Second, reading the tea leaves emanating from Putin’s telcalll with Rouhani (after Crimean crisis) it appears Russia is strategically planning to decouple US sanctions against Iran, in case P5+1 (NPT) nuclear negotiations don’t (finally) succeed, and built a second Basher nuclear plant…and more.

So what is the value of unilateral sanctions? They are ultimately an expression of American Exceptionalism – power of the global hegemon - which may’ve already lost its initial value – Crimea notwithstanding.

It’s amazing to what extent Obama is replicating GWB policies in terms of total disregard to international sovereign law (i.e. unilateralism) and undermining the UN Charter.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Smirniotopoulos Mar 24, 2014

Finally! Someone with the experience and common sense recognizes the 1994 treaty between the Ukraine, U.S., U.K., and Russia. Since day two of Putin's incursion into Crimea I have been screaming into the T.V. (which I do not recommend, inasmuch as it is completely unproductive), asking why not one politician, foreign policy expert or pundit has mentioned the fact that the U.S. and the U.K. are obligated by this treaty to defend the territorial boundaries of Ukraine. Other than a brief mention of the 1994 treaty by former Carter National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski (who, at the time could not recall the exact date of the treaty), I have heard no mentions whatsoever about this obligation. Thank you, Dr. Sachs, for once again bringing rationality and the facts to a very real and pressing crisis facing the world.

Now if we could just get the COM (corporate-owned media) to pay attention to the fact that the U.S. has specific obligations it has to meet under the 1994 treaty. Otherwise, what sane foreign country will ever again trust the U.S. in treaty negations. And you can forget any chance of multilateral nuclear disarmament if the U.S. abandons its obligations to Ukraine under this treaty.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Simon Matthew Mar 24, 2014

It's unclear to me that the arming of Syrian rebels is necessarily against international law. Is it any more than Russia's arming of Assad as he tortures his citizens. Calling him "cruel" is a bit of an understatement.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.