T

he magnitude of the number of Palestinians killed or injured as a result of Israel’s attacks on Gaza since October 7 and the pattern of Israel’s actions have led to the widespread conviction that Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza. Israel’s attacks not only constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity but are also characterized as “acts amounting to genocide” or “genocide.”

While acts of forcible transfer of civilian populations or the creation of an ethnically homogeneous geographical region through mass murder constitute the crime of ethnic cleansing, acts that indicate the existence of an intent to destroy the Palestinian people in whole or in part amount to the crime of genocide.

Thus, the Republic of South Africa filed a petition with the International Court of Justice on December 29, 2023, on the grounds that Israel has violated certain obligations, such as to prevent the commission of genocide within the scope of the Genocide Convention and to punish those who have committed it, and has violated certain other obligations by its actions against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

South Africa argued that Israel’s acts and omissions constitute acts of genocide committed with specific intent to destroy the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip as part of a broader Palestinian national, racial, and ethnic group, and that Israel’s state organs, state officials, and, following its instructions or direction, other persons and entities acting under its control have violated its obligations under the Genocide Convention in relation to the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

The specific acts cited in South Africa’s application are “committing genocide”; “aiding and abetting genocide”; “directly and publicly inciting genocide”; “attempting to commit genocide”; “participating in genocide”; and “failing to punish those who have committed the crime of genocide or any of the acts enumerated in Article 3,” meaning the acts of “failing to enact legislation necessary to give effect to this Convention” and “failing to prosecute persons accused of committing an act of genocide or any of the acts enumerated in Article 3.”

In its application, South Africa found that Israel had violated the abovementioned obligations and requested that interim measures be taken to prevent further harm to the Palestinian people while the case is pending.

South Africa’s request for interim measures

In general, applications to the court under Article 41 of the Statute of the Court and Articles 73, 74, and 75 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court request protective measures to prevent the act or acts which are the subject of the application from causing irreparable damage to the protected rights while the case is pending. An interim measure may also be requested. Under Article 41 of the Statute and Article 75 of the Rules of Procedure, the court is empowered to prescribe provisional measures to protect the rights of any party if it considers that the situation so requires, even in the absence of a separate application.

This request, also known as an interim or provisional order, must be given priority and urgency under Article 74 of the court’s Internal Rules. For this reason, the court first examines whether it has jurisdiction to hear the case in general, not in detail, and if it decides that it has prima facie jurisdiction, it immediately examines and decides on the request for interim measures.

South Africa requested that the application for interim measures be decided by the court as a matter of urgency and requested a series of interim measures with respect to the Palestinian people, a group protected by the Genocide Convention.

In specific, South Africa requested from the court to immediately suspend Israel’s military operations in and against the Gaza Strip in order to protect the Palestinian people from genocide, pending the determination of the case, and to prevent and punish all such actions by all organizations and individuals associated with Israel. The court must prevent the commission of acts within the scope of Article 2 of the Genocide Convention (such as killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group), forcible deportations of the population, denial of access to adequate food and water, and access to adequate fuel and shelter. South Africa asked the court to issue a decision that would include measures such as halting access to humanitarian aid, including clothing, hygiene, and medical supplies and assistance.

The court’s decision on precautionary measures and its significance

The court announced its decision on South Africa’s application for precautionary measures on January 26, 2002, some four weeks after the application was made. Because the court had to consider, albeit in general terms, whether it had jurisdiction to hear the case before taking a decision, the decision addressed this issue first and foremost, stating that the court had jurisdiction to hear the case. In other words, the court clearly stated that South Africa had the authority to file an application, i.e. a lawsuit, against Israel and that the question of the crime of genocide went to the merits of the case.

The court then considered South Africa’s request for precautionary measures. In this regard, it first determined, with reference to the actions taking place on the ground and the statements made by the Israeli authorities, that there was a risk that the acts prohibited by the Genocide Convention would take place, and that there was therefore a substantial risk that both the existence of a society and the right to life of individuals would be violated. Although this finding does not constitute a final acceptance that the crime of genocide has been committed, it should be considered an important judicial finding even at this stage, in the sense that it establishes that there is a serious risk or possibility in this direction.

In this context, Israel must take urgent measures to ensure that its armed forces do not carry out any of these actions.

Secondly, Israel is obliged to take all measures within its power to prevent and punish direct and public incitement to genocide against members of the Palestinian group in the Gaza Strip.

Thirdly, Israel must take urgent and effective measures to ensure the provision of much needed basic services and humanitarian aid to address the adverse living conditions of the Palestinian people in Gaza. Therefore, Israel must cease its attacks and actions that would partially or completely impede the basic needs of the civilian population, contrary to what it has been doing since the beginning of its attacks and continues to do.

Finally, Israel must prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence relating to allegations of acts against Palestinians in Gaza under Articles 2 and 3 of the Genocide Convention.

The main expectation regarding South Africa’s request for preventive measures is that the council will decide to stop all Israeli attacks on Gaza. In fact, South Africa’s first request in the context of measures was that the state of Israel immediately suspend its military operations in and against Gaza. Apparently, the court felt that in order to stop actions that could lead to genocide, it was necessary to stop operations and activities that could lead to genocide, rather than to stop all attacks.

The measures requested by the court are essentially actions such as not targeting civilians, not attacking civilian places, ensuring that the basic needs of civilians are met, and preventing and punishing discourse and initiatives that encourage genocide and related actions.

Although the court has not clearly articulated a measure that would mean a ceasefire, it is important that it directly lists the actions mentioned above and listed in Articles 2 and 3 of the Genocide Convention, and demands that these actions stop, and even that the Israeli forces stop their attacks on Gaza. In a sense, it means that attacks on civilians and civilian settlements must cease completely and that such attacks must be acknowledged for what they are.

According to Article 41 of the Statute of the Court, preventive measures are transmitted to the parties to the case and to the UN Security Council for necessary action. If the party concerned does not comply with the requirements of the resolution or does not comply in an appropriate manner, the UN Security Council must take coercive measures. However, it seems unlikely that the Security Council will act in this case due to a veto from the United States, which has already declared its opposition to the case,

Israel will be expected to fulfil the requirements of the decision and submit a report to the court within one month at the latest. Yet, since the court’s decision does not contain any clear measure, such as the cessation of all operations, in practice Israel may distort the requirements of the decision How can you pretend to implement by violating them on the grounds of “self-defense,” which it has been using unfairly for a long time. To achieve an end to the ongoing genocide, it is not the UN Security Council, but the attitudes and discourses of states, their monitoring of the issue, and the pressure of the international community that are of utmost importance.

W

hen the Herero and Nama tribes revolted against German colonialists and killed 120 Germans on January 12, 1904, the German colonial administration ruling the region now known as Namibia began a massacre that would last four years and culminate in the murder of 70,000 people. Known as the first genocide of the 20th century, the figures show that for every German killed, the troops of the then German Empire killed 583 people.

The Germans then launched World War I, which resulted in the deaths of approximately 18 million people. Germany’s ambition to turn the world into a battlefield rekindled in the late 1930s, and then Chancellor Hitler declared war—which was to turn into World War II—on almost the entire world. Driven by nationalistic sentiments, the war ended with the death of 52 million people, including millions of Jews. Understanding that the Germans would not let the world live in peace, the world powers occupied Germany at the end of the war; today, Germany forms its foreign policy based on this legacy.

Since the end of World War II, German politicians have painted a peaceful picture of their country. They constantly emphasize their commitment to international law, human rights, the rule of law, democracy, and other cherished values. In order to show that they have no imperial designs and to avoid any misunderstanding, they even hesitated to lead the European Union. This policy actually worked, convincing foreigners that, as a state, Germany stood for peace and economic development.

However, as soon as Israel launched its latest attack on Gaza, the German government openly supported Tel Aviv’s genocidal plans and showed its true face. Almost all officials in Berlin—and the German head of the EU Commission, Ursula von der Leyen—constantly state that Israel has the right to defend itself. Their unwavering support is so explicit that they even avoid expressing concern for the lives of civilians. Israel’s massacre continues and the death toll has exceeded 25,000, but Germany does not even call for a ceasefire. It also intervened in favor of Israel in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s genocidal attacks in Gaza.

There is a special relationship between Germany and Israel that is said to be based on shared Western values, beliefs, and certain historical events. According to official German statements, the Germans, as the children of the perpetrators of the Jewish Holocaust, acknowledge the guilt of their ancestors and give assurances that they will prevent any possible massacre of Jews. It is good to see Germany admitting its wrongdoing, but, strangely, its response to past mistakes is another mistake.

Germany’s pro-Israel stance shows that it is once again on the wrong side of history. The best reminder of its current wrongdoing has come from one of Germany’s victims: Namibia. The President of Namibia Hage Geingob stated on X that his country rejects Germany’s support for the racist Israeli state’s genocidal intent against innocent civilians in Gaza. Recalling Germany’s genocide in Namibia in 1904-1908, Geingob advised the German government to atone for the said genocide first.

In other words, he told the German government to look at its own history before defending Israel. The Namibian president also emphasized the mistake and brutality of supporting Israel’s genocide at the ICJ. Geingob warned that Germany cannot, on the one hand, express its commitment to the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and, on the other, support an ongoing genocide while claiming to stand on moral high ground.

The Namibian president’s statement is unique not just because of its support for Palestine and calling out Israel for the genocide It is perpetuating, but also for questioning Germany’s and the Western world’s true commitment to moral values.. There is a clash of civilizations over the Gaza genocide with the developed West on one side and developing and impoverished Africa on the other. There is a clash between power and poverty.

While colonized Namibia opposes Israel’s mass murder of civilians and illegal colonization in general, Germany does not seem to have learned any lessons from its past. Germany’s logic of defending Israel is completely irrational: Germany thinks (or pretends to think) that it can salve its conscience by supporting a genocide perpetrated by the grandchildren of Nazi victims.

Humanity, though, demands that a new massacre be prevented, regardless of who is perpetrating it. Moreover, allowing one community to victimize another is contrary to moral values. From a legal perspective, a state cannot defend actions (in this case, by Israel) that are considered occupation and genocide under international law. If Berlin claims to abide by international law, it cannot support Israel.

However, despite the undeniable facts, the Germans prefer genocide to the values they claim to uphold. This shows that Germany’s and, on the whole, the Western world’s disrespect towards the South, the East, the Muslim world, or the whole non-Western world in general, continues. Values are only words for them and they preserve them only as such.

Namibia stands on the right side of history

Namibia, on the other hand, stands on the right side of history and strives to bring Israel to justice for its crimes. The African country is far more underdeveloped than even Gaza and needs foreign aid to keep up with the rest of the world. Rich countries can reward Namibia with lucrative aid if it sides with Israel, but it has preferred to stand with the oppressed.

We can now ask: who is more civilized? From a materialistic perspective, those with advanced economies and well-run political systems can be considered civilized. However, human beings are not machines. They have feelings and moral values that distinguish them from animals. When a person does not consider morality and justice in their actions, their humanity is diminished and they become a threat to society.

Time has shown that improvements in human life have not improved human beings in the same way. A good education and better living standards do not always make a person more decent, honest, moral, and merciful. History shows us that developed countries like Germany have killed more people in the 20th and 21st centuries than the rest of the world combined.

In contrast to the developed world, poor countries act more rationally, do not condone oppression, and are now taking steps to end it. In other words, poverty is superior to power: Namibia’s and Germany’s stances against Israel’s crimes clearly show that Africans are more civilized when it comes to humanity. It seems that those who are advancing in technology have sacrificed their values and are currently without sense or logic to guide them towards morality.

Germany might produce excellent cars, but has lost the goodness in its heart; Namibia does not provide the world with cutting-edge technology, but remains good at heart. The ongoing Gaza genocide has revealed that while German civilization is fighting to defend genocide, Namibian civilization is fighting to prevent it.

I

t is clear from Israel’s actions that its aim is to exterminate as many Palestinians as possible and, failing that, to expel Palestinians from Gaza. This is undeniably genocide and ethnic cleansing under international law. Therefore, international law requires that Israeli leaders and soldiers be tried and punished for their crimes.

Israel’s attacks on Gaza over the past three months have made it clear that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot be treated as a matter of politics or foreign policy alone: the long-standing conflict between Israel and Palestine is also a legal issue. For decades, the state of Israel has carried out attacks in violation of the laws of armed conflict and humanitarian law, and has been committing many types of genocidal crimes. The Israeli state officials who have committed these serious crimes must be tried and punished.

The purpose of this article is not to report on Israeli violations; it is beyond the article’s scope to list and verify the crimes committed by Israel. In fact, there is no need to try to find examples in this regard given the clear statements of Israeli officials, especially Prime Minister Netanyahu, indicating that they aim to exterminate the entire population of Gaza. These statements corroborate the moral element of the crime of genocide while the material element is carried out by the actions of the Israeli army.

The article discusses the status of the International Criminal Court (ICC), its jurisdiction over Israel, and the possibility of Israeli officials being tried and punished for the crimes they have committed based on Palestine’s recognition by the court. The article also assesses the possible attitude of Western states towards the investigation and prosecution of Israel by the ICC.

Israeli crimes: Violations of humanitarian law, genocide, and war crimes

Since its establishment, Israel has overstepped all the bounds of humanitarian law, the laws of armed conflict, and the laws of war, and has committed crimes amounting to genocide. These crimes, especially in the conflicts that began after October 7, 2023 have escalated and are currently undeniable.

The crime of genocide was first defined in the United Nations “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,” which was adopted in 1948 and entered into force in 1951. Article II of the convention lists the acts that constitute the crime of genocide. Article II states, “genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

• Killing members of the group;
• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
• Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
• Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
•   Imposing Article 2 of the forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

According to Article II, the crime of genocide has three elements:

• The existence of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group which is distinct from others.
• The intent to destroy such a group in whole or in part, and
• The commission of the acts specified in the article against the group in question.

It should be noted that these crimes are committed “with the aim of the total or partial destruction of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.” The burden of proof for the crime of genocide has been met once the above objective has been established—the number and intensity of the acts committed or the number and intensity of the victims are of little importance. The Israeli attacks of recent months, and the political and administrative decisions indicating the intent of these attacks, are proof that the above elements of the crime of genocide have been established.

The ICC’s jurisdiction over Israel

The ICC, which was established by the Rome Statute, is the international mechanism that is responsible for prosecuting and punishing Israeli politicians, soldiers, and other officials for their crimes. The ICC is the first permanent international criminal court that has been established to try and hold accountable perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression.

The ICC has jurisdiction over natural persons over the age of 18, and cannot try states or legal entities. However, holding an official position, including that of head of state, head of government, and member of government, does not exclude the ICC’s jurisdiction (Article 27). The ICC Statute does not contain a territorial limitation of jurisdiction. Its temporal jurisdiction applies to crimes committed after the entry into force of the Statute (1 July 2002) (Article 11).

Proceedings at the ICC are initiated by a request from a state party to the statute or the UN Security Council, or by a spontaneous investigation by the prosecutor (Articles 13/b-15, 53). Prosecution of officials of a state not party to the ICC is possible if they commit the abovementioned crimes in a state party to the statute and that state refers the perpetrators to the ICC (Art. 12).

Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute; Israel signed the Rome Statute in 2000, but notified the UN Secretary-General in 2002 that it had renounced its decision to become a party to the statute. It, therefore, does not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC, and declares that it will not consider the indictments against it. However, the crimes committed by Israel do not take place on its own territory, but on Palestinian territory.

Palestine ratified and acceded to the statute in 2015. “State” status is required to accept the jurisdiction of the ICC (International Criminal Court Rules of Procedure, Art. 44). In 2009, the state of Palestine applied to the ICC Office of the Prosecutor and declared its acceptance of the court’s jurisdiction. After Palestine was granted non-member observer state status at the UN in 2012, the ICC confirmed its jurisdiction over the Palestinian territories in 2015, with effect as of 2014.

On December 20, 2019, the ICC Prosecutor conducted a preliminary examination of the events in Palestine and concluded that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the events there constitute war crimes under the Rome Statute. Following a request by the prosecutor, on February 5, 2021, the ICC decided that its jurisdiction over the situation in Palestine, a state Party to the Rome Statute, extends to the territories occupied by Israel since 1967. However, it declared that its jurisdiction is limited to acts committed after 2014, the date on which the ICC’s jurisdiction over the state of Palestine commenced.

Following this decision, the ICC ruled that possible cases of war crimes in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, including East Jerusalem, would be admissible. This paved the way for the prosecution and punishment of those responsible for crimes committed by Israel. In fact, the Office of the Prosecutor has an ongoing investigation. Following the attacks that began after October 7, on 29 October, ICC Prosecutor Ahmad Khan invited individuals and organizations, whether parties to the ICC or not, to submit new evidence and allegations relevant to the ongoing investigation. In this context, the Office of the Prosecutor is collecting information such as all kinds of documents and photographs relating to the incident, date, place/location, and damage suffered through the system established during the investigation phase.

In this process, Turkey has made many requests to the ICC. On November 24, a delegation from the Istanbul Bar Association No. 2 applied to the ICC with a dossier of evidence, including documents and photographs proving war crimes, and petitions collected from all over Turkey to punish the suspects who committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in the Israeli attacks on Gaza. The delegation’s statement said that it was not enough to submit petitions: the evidence profile included video footage, photographs, witness statements, and victims’ statements. Similarly, the Turkish Bar Association petitioned the ICC against Israel, citing four specific incidents: “Attacks on hospitals and health facilities,” “Bombing of the Palestinian Bar Association,” “Attacks on media workers,” and “Attacks on refugee camps.”

The test of sincerity of international courts and organizations

The ICC has jurisdiction over crimes committed by the state of Israel in the Palestinian territories, a fact confirmed by the court. There is also no doubt that the statements and actions of the Israeli authorities over the past three months constitute clear violations of the laws of war and humanitarian law. In this situation, the ICC, whose raison d’être is to prevent such crimes, must act effectively and swiftly.

International conventions and the international law and institutions that have emerged as a result of them will face an important test in the coming months and years. Western states have already failed this test with their unconditional support for Israel’s attacks over the past eighty days, and their human rights discourse has lost all credibility. Unfortunately, there are serious doubts about the ICC prosecutor’s investigation and subsequent trial as well.

It remains to be seen whether the ICC prosecutor will conduct an effective investigation, what the outcome of the investigation will be, and whether the Israeli officials who committed these grave crimes will be prosecuted. International law requires that the arrest warrants are executed by the European states party to the Rome Statute. Thus, the attitude of these states towards the implementation of the decisions of the Office of the Prosecutor and the ICC will be closely monitored in the coming period. If a case is opened, the ICC’s verdict will be monitored and it will be expected to punish the criminals. Yet, the attitude of Western states towards Israel’s crimes casts doubt on the ICC investigation. All in all, the ICC process appears to be another test of the West’s sincerity on the protection of human rights.

T

he International Court of Justice (ICJ) commenced hearings on Thursday regarding South Africa’s accusation that Israel’s conflict with Hamas amounts to genocide against Palestinians. This contentious claim, vehemently denied by Israel, is a case that is expected to unfold over several years.

South Africa’s initial plea to the ICJ seeks an immediate suspension of Israel’s military offensive in the Gaza Strip. The case delves into the core of Israel’s national identity as a state formed in the aftermath of the Holocaust, counterbalanced by South Africa’s history under apartheid, where comparisons have been drawn to Israel’s policies in Gaza and the West Bank.

The African National Congress, South Africa’s ruling party, has long paralleled Israel’s actions with its own apartheid regime, which oppressed the Black majority until its dismantling in 1994.

Protests

Pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian demonstrators gathered outside the court in freezing temperatures, with Israeli supporters planning a march through The Hague. Despite Israel’s usual skepticism about U.N. and international tribunals, it sent a legal team to defend its military operations following the October 7 attacks by Hamas.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a video statement, defended the country’s actions, stating Israel has no intention of permanently occupying Gaza and is fighting against Hamas, not the Palestinian population.

The Palestinian Authority’s foreign ministry, in a statement, urged the court to “immediately take action to protect the Palestinian people and call on Israel, the occupying power, to halt its onslaught against the Palestinian people.”

Call to halt to Israel’s military actions

The two days of preliminary hearings began with South African lawyers outlining why they accuse Israel of genocidal acts in the Gaza war and why they are seeking an interim order for an immediate halt to Israel’s military actions.

Israel’s offensive in Gaza, according to the Health Ministry in Gaza, has claimed the lives of more than 23,200 Palestinians, with about two-thirds being women and children. Israel argues it is fighting Hamas and accuses them of using Palestinian civilians as human shields.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken dismissed the case as “meritless” during a visit to Tel Aviv, emphasizing that groups attacking Israel, including Hamas and Hezbollah, continue to call for its annihilation.

The ICJ, focused on resolving disputes between nations, has never held a country responsible for genocide. The closest precedent was in 2007 when it ruled that Serbia “violated the obligation to prevent genocide” in the Srebrenica massacre.

South Africa’s case may face challenges in proving genocide, requiring an intent to destroy a group based on race or religion. The hearings mark a significant legal process examining Israel’s conduct in Gaza, with potential implications for future actions. Israel is also scheduled for hearings next month on a U.N. request for an advisory opinion on the legality of its policies in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Source: AP

International law is the branch of law that regulates how states will act in their bilateral relations, drawing the boundaries of their rights and responsibilities. However, the absence of effective mechanisms to enforce the rules of international law, especially against powerful states, apparently renders them ineffective. The recent Russian invasion of Ukraine is a good example, showing the limits of implementing international law. Tensions between Russia and Ukraine since 2014 did not prevent the occupation of Ukrainian land and eventually an all-out war between the two countries.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine declared its independence in 1991 and was ruled by governments closer to Russia until 2014. However, as a result of popular movements, a pro-Western and pro-European Union government came to power in February 2014. The Russian response to this was critical. The Parliament of Crimea, then an autonomous region of Ukraine, decided to conduct a referendum under the influence of Russia via Crimeans of Russian origin, and events ended up with a Russian invasion and the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula.

In April 2014, in the Donbas region of Ukraine, which is located in the east of Ukraine and densely populated by people of Russian origin, two political entities named “Donetsk People’s Republic” and “Luhansk People’s Republic” proclaimed their breakaway from Ukraine. This step foreshadowed what was to come. Eight years later and in February again, Russia wanted to replicate the annexation of Crimea. Russia launched a large-scale military invasion of Ukraine on the morning of February 24, 2022 – an operation that continues to this moment.

Does Russia’s military invasion of Ukraine have any legal ground?

Russia perceives Ukraine’s getting closer to NATO and the West as a major security threat, and argues that Western European countries and the U.S. intervene in Ukraine’s internal politics in order to bring pro-Western governments to power. According to Russian claims, this is anti-democratic and violates human rights, and therefore Russia voices its motive for the invasion as ending the government of Ukraine’s “anti-democratic” rule.

Going even further, Russia claims that the United States and Western European countries have been trying to create a nuclear Ukraine on its border. Overall, it is well-known that Russia perceives Ukraine as part of “its” territory and believes that it should “return” to Russia.

Russia sent its troops initially to eastern Ukraine under the argument of deploying a “peacekeeping force” upon the invitation of the self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Luhansk. This was immediately followed by a large-scale military invasion. Russia’s main argument for sending military troops is the request for “self-defense” by Donetsk and Luhansk.

Can the UN deter Russia?

In order to justify its recognition of self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Luhansk, Russia has asserted that the Ukrainian government has committed “anti-democratic acts and human rights violations.” However, this is not legitimate justification for violating the territorial integrity of a state.

The principle of “respect for the political independence and territorial integrity of states by all other states” is a basic principle of international law articulated in Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations accepted by all states today. For this reason, all direct or indirect activity by Russia is a clear breach and violation of this basic principle.

It was rather foreseeable that the UN Security Council, in which Russia has a veto power, cannot act against the Russian invasion. In this situation, wherein the Security Council cannot decide to keep the peace, the UN General Assembly can recommend measures against Russia by taking a decision to “unite for peace” as in the case of the Korean War. This could help further strengthen the existing sanctions against Russia.

With or without a UN General Assembly resolution, other states can use armed forces to support the exercise of Ukraine’s right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, which regulates the right to self-defense and provides that this right can be exercised by the attacked state alone or with the active assistance of other states. That is to say, with or without a UN resolution, all other countries, including NATO members, can provide assistance, including military, to Ukraine as they see appropriate.

The remaining issue is how to stop the fighting. This war could be stopped either via the options presented by international law to states or via diplomatic channels in the form of negotiations between the relevant sides. The choice between these two is a political matter. In any case, the next step will be determining and prosecuting all those who committed war crimes and crimes against humanity.