Russian attack What could lead to Western military intervention in Ukraine? NATO will not go to war against Russia, and the UN does not seem to be helping, experts say

Russia has carried out free strikes on hospitals and population centers in Ukraine. Its firing has prevented the evacuation of civilians. It is besieging several cities: according to the International Red Cross, the conditions for civilians in Mariupol, for example, are “nightmarish”.

International humanitarian law prohibits military attacks on civilians in war. Safe escape routes must be guaranteed for civilians. Aid organizations must be allowed to help civilians.

However, Russia appears to be violating the Geneva Conventions in Ukraine and committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.

What needs to happen in Ukraine before the international community can react militarily? What are the legal obligations and opportunities for other states to intervene in Russia’s strikes on hospitals, for example?

“Too little alternatives, ”says Professor Emeritus of International Law Martti Koskenniemi.

The UN Charter allows the use of military force in only two situations: for self-defense purposes or under the authority of the Security Council.

The UN Security Council may authorize other states to carry out so-called humanitarian intervention. However, no such authorization will be given to Ukraine: Russia is a permanent member of the Council with a veto.

Other states may help Ukraine to defend itself, but then they will go to war with Russia. There is therefore no separate mandate for the use of “humanitarian force”.

In practice, the UN Charter does not allow other states to do anything militarily in this situation, Koskenniemi says.

“But it is not the word of God.”

In 1999, during the Kosovo war, NATO bombed Belgrade. Koskenniemi was one of the experts in international law who stated that the bombings were “illegal but legitimate”.

Thus, international law was violated, “but sometimes it can be more important to act than to stay within the boundaries of the legal form,” says Koskenniemi.

Now, however, it would be too dangerous for him. That is why there are attempts to put pressure on Russia for peace talks with unprecedented economic sanctions.

In In 2005, the international community agreed on a so-called protection obligation in the UN General Assembly. It was decided that if a state is unable to protect its citizens, other countries can intervene. The background was the genocide in Rwanda and the wars of disintegration in Yugoslavia.

“It involved outlining a new world order,” says Koskenniemi.

The obligation to protect was first introduced in 2011 during the Libyan Civil War. Dictator Muammar Gaddafi had threatened to suppress the uprising bloodily. Authorized by the Security Council NATO to close Libyan airspace and make air strikes. The decision was successful because Russia and China, among others, abstained. NATO airstrikes led to Gaddafi’s death and a change of power. In them also killed civilians.

“NATO interpreted the UN mandate loosely so that a change of power could also take place in Libya. It infuriated Russia and China. ”

In their view, Western countries used the duty to protect as an excuse to change the Libyan leadership.

“Since then, this concept has no longer been able to be used as a political basis at the UN,” says Koskenniemi.

Professor of International Law at the University of Turku Outi Korhonen considers that the obligation to protect could also be applied in the case of Ukraine. That is, if Ukraine is considered incapable of protecting its people from Russian hostilities.

“But very suddenly it comes to light that, under international humanitarian law, the Helpers are full parties to the war. Then they will themselves be subject to legitimate hostilities. ”

World Wars the post-2006 security system was based on the idea that it was the UN that had a duty to maintain peace.

“If the Security Council is paralyzed, the General Assembly can take on this responsibility,” says Korhonen.

“It can delegate the task to NATO, for example. Now NATO has said categorically that it will not leave for Ukraine. “

NATO has stated that it does not want to participate establishment of a no-fly zone To Ukraine.

The UN General Assembly has condemned the Russian attack. Individual states could, if they so wished, demand that the General Assembly decide on humanitarian intervention and assemble an alliance to implement it.

“But which state would deploy troops under the General Assembly?” Koskenniemi asks.

“The General Assembly has previously deployed peacekeeping operations, but they cannot have the right to use force. That requires a decision by the Security Council. “

Koskenniemi does not believe that coercion could be used in Ukraine. “No state would give troops to it.”

Korhonen says the UN would be a safer option for intervention than NATO. “NATO knows it itself.”

“The idea of ​​collective security is an incredibly great idea. That those who go to help will not be involved in the war. ”

In practice, the idea has been difficult to implement.

Korhonen wonders what will happen if the UN still proves incapable of any solution. Is NATO’s influence growing?

“These are pretty existential questions for the UN.” On the other hand, NATO will not be able to act more agilely here either, because it does not want a war with Russia, Korhonen says.

In the Syrian civil war, Syria used chemical weapons against its own citizens and the international community did not intervene. President of the United States Barack Obama had said beforethat if Syria does so, the United States will not be left behind.

However, this happened. The whole world followed.

“It was a really bad precedent,” says Outi Korhonen.