September 17th, 2008 Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »
International law has hit a roadblock. Russia has recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia. To date, it appears unlikely many countries in the world will follow Russia’s lead any time soon. Kosovo, which declared unilateral independence in February, has been recognized by scores of countries, but many other countries are steadfast that they will continue to refuse to acknowledge Kosovo’s statehood.
Interestingly enough, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Kosovo are recognized (or not recognized) due to interpretations of international law. Almost everyone touts the UN Charter and/or the Helsinki Final Act to justify their stance on recognition of a country’s international legal status. How did it come to this? How can the same basic legal documents be interpreted so differently?
What has happened to international law? During the Cold War there were differing opinions about how it should work, but since then consensus has slowly vanished. Was there something about the Cold War that made consensus about international law easier and more straightforward? Why is this not the case today?
In my humble opinion all of this happened because the West no longer sees the need for international law after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It claims it won the Cold War and now can do what it wants – even if that means ignoring international law or making it up as it went along. We have seen this time and again – be it the illegal invasion of Iraq or the dubious recognition of Kosovo. The consequences of this are grave and unpredictable.
I find all of this interesting. International law probably helped us avoid a major Cold War confrontation. What can’t it be of use today when the past Cold War rivalries find former foes having so many common international interests? I don’t have the answer(s). However, it is clear to me that Russia has come to the conclusion that if international law is not interpreted universally its new default position is the respect of human rights.
Russia recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia because of its understanding of international law (and still does not recognize Kosovo for the same reasons). However, there is an important caveat. Russia has brought human rights – the right to not be killed in an aggressive war – back on the table. The Saakashvili regime is not repentant. Just the opposite, its aggression has been reward by its Western backers. This called for action – particularly as Russia is always impacted by violence on its borders.
Russia has done the right thing. Sadly international law doesn’t stop wars (and sometimes it is ignored to start them). Until international law again has any salient meaning, falling back on what is undeniably important should be respected. And that is the protection of human rights.
Since the end of Cold War the West has used and abused international law to advance its geopolitical advantage (and usually against Russia’s legitimate security interests). The human rights factor is not part of the West’s international legal equation. But alas, at least the people of South Ossetia and Abkhazia can now sleep at night knowing Tbilisi is no longer a threat to them.
If this is Russia’s understanding of international law, then I agree with
"Surrender life to motherland, soul to God, and honor to nobody!"
RUSSIAN IMPERIAL FORUM 
