Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Impacts on Jus Cogens: Impact on the Law of State Responsibility and Law of Treaties

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Global Impact of the Ukraine Conflict

  • 261 Accesses

Abstract

In international law, the special military operation launched by Russia against Ukraine on 24 February 2022 is concerned with the legitimacy and legality of the use of force and the annexation of the Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia regions of Ukraine. The use of force places its legal foundation on the right to self-defence, while annexation in this case corresponds to the acquisition of territory through a treaty. In the case of self-defence, as a legal legitimisation, Russia invokes the ‘Donetsk People’s Republic’ and the ‘Luhansk People’s Republic’s’ request for help on the basis of Treaties on Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance, and by incorporating the four regions into Russia, they concluded the treaties on annexation. However, these treaties are invalid based on the regions’ lack of capacity to make such treaties. The regions cannot be recognized as independent states, regardless of their claims for the right to self-determination based on referendums. Furthermore, Russia’s special military operation is considered an illegal use of force in violation of the peremptory norm (jus cogens). All states are obliged to cooperate to bring an end to unlawful situations resulting from the violation of the peremptory norm of non-use of force.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Gill (2022), pp. 122–126.

  2. 2.

    Mills and Butchard (2022), pp. 5–6.

  3. 3.

    For example, Japan (2022, September 30).

  4. 4.

    Lowe (2007), p. 59.

  5. 5.

    On the recognitions by three nations, Russia (2022, February 21); Syrian Arab News Agency (2022, June 29); Korean Central News Agency (2022, July 14).

  6. 6.

    Russia (2022, February 21); Russia (2022, February 22-I); Russia (2022, February 22-II); Japan (2022, February 24).

  7. 7.

    Russia (2022, February 24).

  8. 8.

    General Assembly, Resolution (A/RES/ES-11/1) (2022, March 2). Aggression against Ukraine. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3965290.

  9. 9.

    Russia (2022, September 28).

  10. 10.

    Tass (2022, September 30).

  11. 11.

    Russia (2022, September 30-I); Russia (2022, September 30-II).

  12. 12.

    Tass (2022, October 1).

  13. 13.

    Tass (2022, October 3).

  14. 14.

    Russia (2022, October 6); Russian Legal Information Agency (2022, October 5).

  15. 15.

    General Assembly, Resolution (A/RES/ES-11/4) (2022, October 12). Territorial Integrity of Ukraine: Defending the Principles of the Charter of the United Nations. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3990673.

  16. 16.

    Tass (2022, March 17).

  17. 17.

    Russia (2022, February 24).

  18. 18.

    Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America). Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 105, para 199. The International Court of Justice also held that it ‘concludes that the requirement of a request by the State which is the victim of the alleged attack is additional to the requirement that such a State should have declared itself to have been attacked’.

  19. 19.

    Russia (2022, September 30-I).

  20. 20.

    Tass (2022, October 1).

  21. 21.

    Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation (2022, October 2).

    (Donetsk). http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/Document/View/0001202210020002;

    (Luhansk). http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/Document/View/0001202210020003;

    (Kherson). http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/Document/View/0001202210020001;

    (Zaporizhzhia). http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/Document/View/0001202210020004.

    The author is grateful to Professor Kenjiro SHIBUYA of Waseda University, expert of Russian Law, for valuable comments and information of the official site on the judgements of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation to fill the author’s language problem of Russian.

  22. 22.

    Masol (2022).

  23. 23.

    See also the remark of the Foreign Minister. Russia (2022, October 4).

  24. 24.

    Meduza (2022, October 3).

  25. 25.

    Russia (2022, October 3). Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that ‘[a]ccording to the established procedure, the Constitutional Court of Russia verified the correspondence of the agreements to the Constitution of the Russian Federation and delivered a positive conclusion’.

  26. 26.

    Aust (2000), p. 47.

  27. 27.

    See the text of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969). https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf.

  28. 28.

    See the text of the Constitution of Ukraine (1996). https://rm.coe.int/constitution-of-ukraine/168071f58b.

  29. 29.

    Aust (2000), pp. 48–49.

  30. 30.

    See the text of the Convention on Rights and Duties of States adopted by the Seventh International Conference of American States. Signed at Montevideo, December 26th, 1933. https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/LON/Volume%20165/v165.pdf.

  31. 31.

    On the controversial character of the Montevideo criteria of statehood, Grant (1999), pp. 453–457.

  32. 32.

    Yamamoto (1994), pp. 123–124.

  33. 33.

    Ukraine (2019, December 19).

  34. 34.

    See footnote 5.

  35. 35.

    Russia (2014, March 18). See also, Barausova (2021), pp. 375–386.

  36. 36.

    Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2010, p. 436, para 79.

  37. 37.

    Yamada (2022), pp. 10–11.

  38. 38.

    Brownlie (1998), p. 46.

  39. 39.

    General Assembly, Resolution (A/RES/25/2625) (1970, October 24). https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/202170.

  40. 40.

    Crawford (2006), pp. 390, 417; Yamada (2022), pp. 8–9.

  41. 41.

    I.C.J. Reports 2010, supra note 36, p. 438, paras 82–83.

  42. 42.

    Supreme Court of Canada (1998). Reference re Secession of Quebec, 2 SCR 217, para 154. https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1643/index.do.

  43. 43.

    Lowe (2007), p. 114. Professor Lowe indicates in general terms that ‘[t]here are no clear answers to these questions, and the lack of certainty on such fundamental aspects of the principle underlines the fact that it was essentially a child for its time, rooted in the movement for decolonization and unsure of its role beyond that context’.

  44. 44.

    General Assembly, Resolution (A/RES/1514(XV)) (1960, December 14). https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/206145.

  45. 45.

    Thierry et al. (1986), pp. 257–258.

  46. 46.

    Brownlie (1998), pp. 39–40.

  47. 47.

    General Assembly, supra note 15.

  48. 48.

    Jennings and Watts (eds.) (1992), p. 680.

  49. 49.

    Ibid., pp. 681–683.

  50. 50.

    See above, 2.2.

  51. 51.

    General Assembly, supra note 8.

  52. 52.

    Ukraine (2022, July 22).

  53. 53.

    For example, G7 (2023, February 24); Japan (2023, February 24); USA, France and UK (2022, October 23).

  54. 54.

    Draft Conclusions on Identification and Legal Consequences of Peremptory Norms of General International Law (Jus Cogens), with Commentaries. https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/1_14_2022.pdf.

  55. 55.

    Weatherall (2015), p. 7.

  56. 56.

    See the text of the Vienna Convention, supra note 27.

  57. 57.

    Ciampi (2011), p. 372.

  58. 58.

    Corten (2011), p. 1211.

  59. 59.

    Villiger (2009), p. 645.

  60. 60.

    Corten (2011), pp. 1212–1213.

  61. 61.

    Kolb (2015), pp. 124–125.

  62. 62.

    Ibid., p. 125.

  63. 63.

    General Assembly, supra note 8.

  64. 64.

    General Assembly, supra note 15.

  65. 65.

    Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, Vol. 2, Part 2, p. 29.

  66. 66.

    Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1971, p. 58, para 133 (2), (3).

  67. 67.

    Yearbook, supra note 65, p. 114, paras 3, 8, 11 (Article 41).

  68. 68.

    Ibid., p. 112, para 7 (Part 2, Chapter 3: Introduction).

  69. 69.

    Ibid., p. 113, para 8 (Article 40).

  70. 70.

    Ibid., pp. 111–112, para 7 (Part 2, Chapter 3: Introduction).

  71. 71.

    Pellet (1999), pp. 433–434. He indicates that this issue may be properly called a ‘terminological problem’.

  72. 72.

    Crawford (2002), pp. 18–20.

  73. 73.

    Comments and Observations Received from Governments. Document A/CN.4/515 and Add.1–3, pp. 67–72, 86, 94. https://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_515.pdf.

  74. 74.

    General Assembly, supra note 15.

  75. 75.

    General Assembly, supra note 8.

  76. 76.

    Resolution of General Assembly (A/RES/ES-11/1): Approval 141, Dissents 5, Abstention 35, Absence 12, Total 193. Resolution of General Assembly (A/RES/ES-11/4): Approval 143, Dissents 5, Abstention 35, Absence 10, Total 193.

  77. 77.

    Simma (1994), pp. 221–384.

  78. 78.

    Weil (1983), pp. 413–442.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan

    Hiroyuki Banzai

Authors
  1. Hiroyuki Banzai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Waseda Law School, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan

    Shuichi Furuya

  2. Graduate School of Law, Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo, Japan

    Hitomi Takemura

  3. Faculty of Law, Chuo University, Tokyo, Japan

    Kuniko Ozaki

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Banzai, H. (2023). Impacts on Jus Cogens: Impact on the Law of State Responsibility and Law of Treaties. In: Furuya, S., Takemura, H., Ozaki, K. (eds) Global Impact of the Ukraine Conflict. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-4374-6_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-4374-6_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-99-4373-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-99-4374-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation