Sanctions Russia’s attack is “unprecedented, incomprehensible and irrational” but economic sanctions do not work, says international law researcher Martti Koskenniemi

Economic sanctions Against Russia are ineffective but nonetheless important, says Professor Emeritus of International Law Martti Koskenniemi.

“It’s hard to even imagine Russia withdrawing from Ukraine because of economic sanctions, and I don’t think policymakers even think so. The main task of sanctions is to show unity and determination against Russia and at the same time to stay out of armed conflict. “

According to Koskenniemi, investigations have shown that after the Second World War, there was only one case in which a state at war had changed its operations due to sanctions. When France and Britain invaded Egypt in the 1956 Suez War, the United States imposed sanctions on them.

“This led to both states withdrawing quickly. Over time, the political goal of sanctions has only been achieved in 20-30% of cases where sanctions have been imposed. “

Koskenniemi emphasizes that economic sanctions have worked as desired if there is a broad consensus on their acceptability and they target a political ally, as in the Suez War.

“The sanctions imposed on Iraq in 1990 meant a total economic embargo. The effects were dramatic: they didn’t really have any effect Saddam to Hussein and not those close to him, but for ordinary citizens, the sanctions caused immense suffering when 90% of foreign trade to Iraq was cut off. ”

In other words, in authoritarian states, sanctions work poorly because dictators do not care about the suffering of their citizens. Since then, states and international organizations have changed their practices. A full-scale economic embargo has no longer been resorted to due to the plight of the Iraqi civilian population.

“This is why we have moved on to sanctions against individuals. When the bank accounts of influential people are closed and their business abroad is made impossible, they may, because of their close relationships, put pressure on political leadership for goals that are the purpose of sanctions. ”

On the other hand, it is difficult to say whether this is the case in Russia. President Vladimir Putin has sought in recent years to reduce the influence of at least certain oligarchs.

“

“Since World War I, we have had a system of international law whose fundamentals have never been questioned in this way before.”

About everything nevertheless, Koskenniemi considers it important that sanctions have been imposed on Russian banks, companies and people.

“It is very important that the international community shows determination against Russia with its sanctions. If they were not imposed, the conclusion for Russia – and elsewhere – would be that the rules of international law do not matter much. ”

According to the United Nations Charter, the use of force must be acceptable if it is initiated in self-defense. According to Koskenniemi, the attack on Ukraine initiated by Putin’s order is arbitrary.

“Russia’s attack is unprecedented, incomprehensible and irrational, especially since we have had a system of international law since the First World War, the foundations of which have never before been questioned in the way that Russia has now done.”

Military no matter how much force has been used in recent decades, Koskenniemi says there has always been an attempt to find some legal justification for the attacks. Usually, it has been an appeal to the right of self-defense, claiming that another state is going to attack.

In a speech released on Thursday, President Putin referred to the right to self-defense only in passing, but Koskenniemi said he did not even try to present any evidence.

In addition, the attacks have been justified on humanitarian grounds, but reliance on them is legally controversial, he said. President Putin, for example, has claimed that Russia is using its attack to prevent genocide in Ukraine. This could, in principle, be a humanitarian justification, if true.

“The most incredible thing is that Russia has put forward some justification for its attack at some point, but none of them quite seriously. In this way, it despises the entire system of international law. This is unprecedented. ”

“

“The incomprehensible attack on Ukraine is most reminiscent of the absurdity of the First World War.”

In the first 16 million people died in World War II, although according to Koskenniemi, no one really understood what the purpose of the war was. World War I was so incomprehensible that it slowly led to the development of rules of international law to justify war.

“For me, as a researcher of the history of international law, the incomprehensible attack launched by Russia on Ukraine is mainly reminiscent of the absurdity of the First World War. Russia has not even relied on the infamous phrase “change of government” used by the West to try to justify attacks against international law. “

Koskenniemi also points out that in his speech, President Putin referred to the illegal bombing of Belgrade in the West in 1999 and the illegal war in Iraq in 2003.

“Of course, these illegalities in the West do not justify Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but they also show how important it is for the West to comply with the provisions of the UN Charter.”