Everything/Nothing is "Illegal" in International Relations

We should probably stop using that word

Last week, people including Joe Biden, Emanuel Macron, and UN Secretary General António Guterres condemned Russia’s attempted annexation of parts of Ukraine as “illegal”. And on the one hand: sure, I’m with ya. This aggression will not stand, man. Though, I would have been more comfortable if they had called Putin’s land-grab “unacceptable”, “unconscionable”, or — though I understand this isn’t very statesmanlike — “a deeply fucked move from a real shit-smeared asshole.”

I feel that way because the word “illegal” means almost nothing in international relations. This is a small thing — people using a word in a context that I find a bit silly — that captures a very big thing: That there are few legally enforceable rules in the international sphere. Our system is anarchic, and in the bad way, not in the “inspired some of the best punk albums of the ‘70s” way.

But let’s focus on the semantics (because the challenge of global peace will continue for thousands of years after I die, and I need to post something this week). It’s almost certainly true that what Putin is doing is illegal. Though articles like this one and this one are content to throw the word “illegal” around like a drive-time DJ tossing beads from a Mardi Gras float without explaining which laws, specifically, are being broken, there are actual words in ink on paper here. UN Resolution 2625, passed by the General Assembly in 1970, says this:

The territory of a State shall not be the object of acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or use of force.

A bit more broadly, Article 2(4) of the UN Charter reads:

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.

I feel that any reasonable person would conclude that Russia is violating those laws. But, as it happens, UN law is a lot like the bible: It’s vague, nobody actually knows what it says, and only total nutjobs take it literally.

Consider the sentence that comes immediately before the sentence I cited from Resolution 2625:

The territory of a State shall not be the object of military occupation resulting from the use of force in contravention of the provisions of the Charter.

Did we not occupy Iraq for a while? We did — remember that? There was a Green Day song about it. Of course, we could debate the legality of the Iraq occupation (PLEASE let’s not) due to the wording that says “in contravention of the provisions of the Charter”.

So, which provisions are those? The biggie is Chapter VI, which governs the use of force. The money-shot clause (my words, not Eleanor Roosevelt’s) is Article 39:

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken…

That is: Countries are supposed to resolve disputes peacefully UNLESS the Security Council authorizes force. That’s where the real power in the United Nations lies: The Security Council. They determine what counts as aggression, what’s self-defense, what’s barbarous villainy and what’s good-natured hijinks. When Resolution 2625 says “in contravention of the provisions of the Charter,” it means “without the Security Council’s permission.”

Of course, any motion can be vetoed by one of the Security Council’s five permanent members: The US, the UK, Russia, China, and…France? No, that can’t be right. (checks notes) Yeah, holy shit: France. Anyway: Those five countries make the big decisions about what, functionally, is “legal” and “illegal” when it comes to war and peace. And, obviously, having Vladimir Putin be the arbiter of just and unjust war is like having Harvey Weinstein be your workplace conduct compliance officer.

The UN Security Council is essentially irrelevant to the war in Ukraine. As a practical matter, UN resolutions are ignored on a regular basis, and every country is in violation of international law all the time. So, to return to the bible comparison: Basically everything is forbidden, which even Reverend Lovejoy has observed.

War and peace isn’t the only area where international law is a red herring. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is so hilariously unenforceable that to call it “a list of nifty ideas” probably gives it too much gravitas. Even better-defined areas like the Geneva Conventions have fuzzy borders and thin precedents. As a general rule, the more narrow the scope, the better defined the law; there are occasionally-relevant regimes on things like whaling and prosecuting once-in-a-decade criminals. International law is basically a niche product, like tentacle porn or a cat-shaped teapot.

Therefore, to say “that’s illegal” in response to some international incident is a somewhat-silly statement. Everything is illegal, and therefore nothing is. Of course, people call stuff “illegal” all the time; it’s been shrieked in response to actions far less egregious than the invasion of Ukraine. People use it like they use the word “literally”: it’s an emphasizer, something you toss in to show that you mean business. Even if it doesn’t quite make sense in context.

Putin’s bullshit annexation is shitty, laughable, unethical, and bad. I get why some people are underwhelmed by those words — I understand the impulse to reach for something stronger. And it’s clear that Putin is violating the letter of the law; unfortunately, the arbiter of whether that’s true is Putin himself. That’s the law, too. International law is a work in progress, which is another way of saying that — for the most part — it’s a vague, unusable mess. Instead of calling things “illegal”, we should probably call them “very bad, in my opinion” and leave it at that.