Marieke de Hoon Profile picture
Feb 22, 2022 17 tweets 10 min read Read on X
Kremlin has just posted #Putin's speech in English: en.kremlin.ru/events/preside…
Dissecting it a bit for references to international law justifications for using force. Spoiler alert: Russia (obviously) does not have right to use force. It is #aggression. It's a crime of aggression. 1
It starts by referring to Ukrainians not as foreigners but embracing them as if they are Russian nationals. "Ukraine is not just a neighbouring country for us. It is an inalienable part of our own history,culture and spiritual space. These are our comrades, those dearest to us" 2
Nationality of course is a very strong legal concept on the basis of which a lot is allowed: if #Ukraine is not foreign but domestic, it is "law enforcement" rather than "armed attack"; it is "protection" rather than "invasion"; it is "helping them" rather than "annexing from". 3
This connects to #passportization strategy. #Russia provides passports to Ukrainians, then says it protects its nationals. Only: int'l law does not allow military force. Just not. Unless you argue it's not abroad. Or that it's independent and invites you to.. Well, there it is. 4
A few paragraphs later Putin drops "Nobody asked the millions of people living there what they thought". This goes straight to right to self-determination, suggesting this is violated and they have right to secede (which int'l law doesn't allow with help from foreign military). 5
Next, USSR's dissolution, how #Russia helped #Ukraine, and the injustices UKR did to RUS. Putin argues UKR broke agreements, blackmailed RUS and stole gas: suggesting UKR violated legal obligations (and thus this is a counter-measure? - countermeasure cannot be use of force) 6
Then speech moves to corruption in #Ukraine, steeling from the people, and towards suggesting Ukraine is a "failed state". Failed states are often understood as states that lack effectiveness and legitimacy. As if you could invade. But no, international law does not allow that. 7
Moving to statements on UKR gov stealing from its people, human rights violations by UKR gov, and violations of internal self-determination of pro-Russians. Goes to flirting with humanitarian intervention (or R2P) as if that would justify military invasion (it does not). 8
Then #Crimea. References to self determination. Even if it were true that plebiscite was held fairly, international law does not allow another state to "help" free a people and annex it as own territory by placing their military (remember the little green men) on the territory. 9
And finally self-defense-rhetoric: there's a threat of (nuclear) armed attack, supported by foreign forces, so we must fight (back)."In fact, this is nothing other than preparation of hostilities against our country, #Russia" Classic.Brings back memories of WMD in Iraq (US/UK) 10
Moreover, references to #NATO troops as posing a threat to #Russia. This is not a lawful appeal to right to self-defense either: these troops don't pose an "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no time for deliberation"-type threat to armed attack on Russia. 11
But more importantly, Russia is not really threatened by NATO. See for instance: And creating "empire" is not a lawful ground for use of force, obviously. Quite the contrary, it is what the UN was created for to prevent and collectively defend against. 12
"Self-defence"-arguments incl "that the risk of a sudden strike at our country will multiply" & "confirm the possibility of a so-called preemptive strike", which is not an armed attack nor one that's about to occur, see tweet 11's Caroline-criteria. So no justification either. 13
Then a very interesting paragraph on clashing values (or is it interests..?), in which Putin claims that the West would issue sanctions regardless of what Russia does, and they would fabricate a pretext, because the goal of the West is to hold back the development of #Russia. 14
And after all that build-up, the concl: "Russia has every right to respond in order to ensure its security. That is exactly what we will do." Calling situation Genocide & invoking UNSC Res to tick off all types of legal justifications. But none are actual legal justifications. 15
Ending with: Recognition of the independence and sovereignty of DPR and LPR. Followed by deployment of Russian troops in DPR/LPR. This recognition is a violation of territorial integrity, #passportization is violation non-intervention principle, invasion is act of #aggression. 16
And to "But Russia doesn't care about international law": Russia does, otherwise it wouldn't try to justify its actions, here, in Crimea & Georgia. It twists and turns int'l law and human rights to make it *sound* lawful or legitimate. That's #lawfare. Just don't fall for it. 17

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Marieke de Hoon

Marieke de Hoon Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @mariekedehoon

Jan 11, 2023
Vreselijk. Structurele deportaties kinderen duidt op #genocide (art II(e) Genocideverdrag) als wordt bewezen dat dit met oogmerk is om #Oekraïeners te vernietigen als nationale groep, zodat alleen mensen overblijven die zich Rus noemen. Kinderen weghalen = toekomst groep weghalen
Draadje om dit wat nader toe te lichten. De ontvoeringen van kinderen gebeuren al sinds 2014 en is sindsdien een kernonderdeel geweest van de strijd van #Rusland tegen #Oekraine. Inmiddels gaat het om enorme getallen. UKR zegt 300.000 kinderen; RUS zegt zelfs 700.000. #Nieuwsuur
Zoals @lisas_research uitlegde in #Nieuwsuur is de "protection of the children"-retoriek al onderdeel van de propaganda en rechtvaardiging van dit conflict sinds het begin. Zij zeggen de kinderen te redden uit Oekraïense handen om ze zo een nieuwe, Russische toekomst te bieden.
Read 12 tweets
Nov 17, 2022
On my way to court for the #MH17 judgment. Will the Dutch court convict 3 Russians (Girkin, Dubinskiy, Pulatov) and 1 Ukrainian (Kharchenko) for downing Flight MH17 on 17 July 2014? I wrote an explainer in @just_security yesterday. And I’ll livetweet the judgment in English here.
15 mins until #MH17 judgment starts at 13:30 CET. Tensions rising here. Judgment is livestreamed in Dutch & English interpretation: courtmh17.com/livestream/uit… I will be trying to explain it here, (mostly) in English. For more background explanation, see also MH17.legal
#MH17 Court opens session at 13:41 CET. No suspects present. Attorneys of Pulatov are present and his trial is adversarial; other 3 cases are in absentia. The 2 extra judges are not present, b/c not necessary: they attended all hearings in case needed to replace one of the judges
Read 40 tweets
Oct 1, 2022
Interesting in #Putin's speech was that the West would've created a rules-based order #Russia never agreed to. Appealing, I think, to non-Western, often former colonial states where this type of critique lands well. But USSR was frontrunner in establishing many of these rules. 1/
From 1950-1974, USSR led the campaign to define "aggression" in order to eliminate justifications for aggressive wars (A/C.1/608) while USA, FRA, CAN led the protests against any form of a fixed definition: they wanted to leave it up to UNSC, open for power play and ambiguity. 2/
The USSR wanted a detailed definition of this core norm in a rules-based order, aggression, that restricted the discretion of the UN Security Council. Despite meanwhile invading Hungary by the way: "to suppress a revolt", the 1956 Hungarian Revolution. 3/
Read 11 tweets
Sep 30, 2022
Just as in 21 Feb-speech, #Putin uses the language of international law to spin his aggression as if #Russia is protecting human rights and self-determination of peoples, acting in self-defence, saving Russians from the aggressive West. Saying #Ukraine is aggressor. It's #lawfare
Despite all ceremony to let it appear as if some legal event took place in fake "referenda" and now signing the annexation, this has no effect in international law, just like Crimea's annexation did not. Int'l law prohibits any state recognising territorial results of aggression.
People often say Putin doesnt care about int'l law. It's far more complex: if he wouldnt care, he wouldnt invoke int'l law's doctrines. He uses & manipulates int'l law to try to legitimise his violations by making it seem as if int'l law allows it or could be interpreted as such.
Read 5 tweets
Aug 6, 2022
Voor degenen die van de juridische details houden, draadje. In beginsel: mensenrechtenorganisaties zoals #Amnesty vervullen belangrijke taak door te signaleren als sprake is van schendingen zoals van #oorlogsrecht. Maar hier is het niet zo duidelijk dat dat ook geschonden is.
In een gewapend conflict moeten beide partijen zich houden aan het oorlogsrecht, ongeacht wie de agressor is. Rusland is hier de agressor, Oekraïne verdedigt zich. Maar beide landen zijn gebonden aan regels die vooral dienen om onnodige extra burgerslachtoffers te voorkomen.
Zo is er onderscheid tussen militaire doelwitten en burgerobjecten. Als strijdende partij burgerobject gebruikt voor de strijd, dan kan dit een legitiem militair doelwit worden. Maar alleen indien noodzakelijk & proportioneel en zoveel mogelijk voorkomen van burgerslachtoffers.
Read 12 tweets
Feb 27, 2022
So let's go legal: Art 1 Genocide Convention provides for the obligation to prevent #genocide. Putin alluded to this in speech Monday when he claimed a genocide in #Ukraine and that they therefore could/had to intervene. This is false: it's not a justification for use of force.
Plus there is no genocide in #Ukraine, so more form of gaslighting. See for further analysis of his argumentations to appear as if his armed force is lawful/legitimate instead of the violation of art 2(4) UN Charter and act of aggression that it is, this:
Since #Russia referred to "#Genocide", #Ukraine now says: apparently we have a dispute over the interpretation and application of the notion of "genocide" and since we are both state parties to that treaty, we will invoke Article IX Genocide Convention. Image
Read 10 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(