Thread by @EpshtainItay

In #UkraineInvasion the jus ad bellum - resorting to armed force, and jus in bello - rules regulating the conduct of hostilities, intersect. Recognizing and understanding intersectionality is key to a well reasoned and effective response - normative, humanitarian, and political.

The prohibition against the use of force amongst states and the exceptions to it (self-defence, and UN authorization for the use of force), set out in the UN Charter, are the core ingredients of jus contra bellum.

Article 2(4) provides that "all Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

#Russia has violated the jus contra bellum, committing an act of aggression within the meaning of Article 3 of UN General Assembly Resolution 3314. In particular, the invasion and occupation - however temporary - or any annexation by force of #Ukraine.

#Russia has confirmed its intention to violate the jus in bello #IHL, which prohibits - pursuant to Article 47 GCIV - any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, or annexation in whole or part.

In the case of #Ukraine - already under #Russian belligerent occupation - the intersection between the origin of conflict, and the efficacy of occupation law is going to become instrumental in the protection of individuals, and the maintenance of international peace and security.

For example, applying the definition of occupation, including the norms and promotions that it brings about, requires an analysis of jus ad bellum circumstances.

i.e., assessing inadmissible changes - which #Russia intends - ousting the rightful sovereign and affecting territorial acquisition, would require reference to the privileges and limitations of an occupying power, and wrongfulness under the law of state responsibility.