News:

On 25th of January 2015, special session of United Nations Security Council was held regarding shelling attack on Mariupol. Representatives of Russian Federation that have veto power, did not allow the approval statement of Security Council on events in Mariupol. On accusations press-service of Russia in UN stated, that statement of Security Council was not agreed because of London "since delegation of Britain insisted in condemning by UN SC some statements of certain rebels". (Source)

Comment:

Over a period of one year, political analysts and officials have stated that annexation of Crimea by Russia in the first place is fraught with violation of unshakeable standards of international law.

There were many unsuccessful attempts to approve resolutions and statements by United Nations Security Council on crisis in Ukraine, where one of the last events in Mariupol was blocked on 25th of January.

Discussions about violation of international law intensified on the 20th anniversary of Budapest Memorandum (December 5, 2014), when analysts argued that violation of international agreement of such level will have fatal consequences for international law and relations, and also will urge proliferation of nuclear weapon in the world.

Today many people inclined to criticize Russia for violation of international law, however, in fact we must criticize not certain violations, but the current paradigm of international law itself. Yes, undoubtedly, Ukrainian crises exposed the paralysis and inefficiency of international relations system in general. If we carefully study the practical application and violation of international law, irrespectively in UN or in certain agreements and treaties, we will see that states were never motivated with concern about peace, nations and their prosperity. Such goals as "maintaining international peace and security" and "principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples" that are secured in Charter of the United Nations remained phrases on paper that have no real impact on life of international community.

Let me cite two examples:

One of the events when international law was obviously violated was in March of 2003 when we witnessed invasion in independent state Iraq without any resolution of UN Security Council. Afterwards it became obvious for all that "concern about international stability" and "search and destruction of weapon of mass destruction" was nothing else but smoke screen for reformation of region on behalf of USA.

Sometimes the use of right of veto by some members in Security Council is used to justify inaction. Such situations have had taken place for three years since 2011 in Syrian crisis when US considered unfavorable overthrow of its proxy Bashar Assad in Syria. US closed eyes on all his crimes against own people, including usage of chemical weapon, and at the same time US impose responsibility on Russia for inaction, since Russia used veto power when any resolution that treats regime of Assad was under consideration in Security Council.

Feigned nature of American submission to decisions of UN is confirmed by the fact that when activity of Abu Bakr al-Bagdadi's organization "Islamic state" started to threaten (possible invasion of Bagdadi's organization in Iraqi Kurdistan) American plan of "division of Iraq by ethnic and sectarian identity", US struck positions of "Islamic state" in Syria on 22th of September. US attacked "Islamic state" without any resolutions of UN Security Council. This shows us that veto of Russia in UN is not the cause of American inactivity.

These are only two examples, however if we study the application of international law in history we will find many such cases. International law was always a tool in hands of superpowers for interference in domestic policy of independent states on behalf of own interests.
The main point is that the idea of "international law" can not exist, since terms "international" and "law" are not compatible. There three reasons for that:

1. Law - is the decree that is adopted by legislative body (ruler). International ruler can not exist a priori.

2. Law must be implemented, so enforcement machinery is needed. In a state this implemented by law enforcement institutions, like police. Implementation of this internationally is impossible since UN peacekeeping forces today are nothing but armed force coalition of different countries. So, these forces will not protect international law or for instance, sovereignty and interests of other nations, when this protection threatens their own states or their interests. This is what exactly happened in the Ukrainian crisis and violation of Budapest Memorandum by either aggressor Russia or other signers of this agreement.

3. The law regulates the relations. This regulation is appropriate only in relations between members of one certain society and could not be applied when it refers to states. Since every state has sovereign right to establish or avoid relations with countries according to own interests.

Since the concept of international law emerged, difference spread amongst the jurists of the west over the nature of its rules, and many of them doubted its binding force. I. Kant, G. Hegel, J. Austin and T. Hobbes denied the presence of a common international law.

However, later under pressure and lobbying of superpowers this idea become well-established in international relations.

Consequently international law with all its institutions became nothing but a tool for contest and struggle between such states as USA, Russia, England, France and China. Other nations, their states, resources and territory became victims of criminal usage of this tool by superpowers.

This is the main cause of instability that spread in many places of the world, where suffering of Ukraine and its people is only a small episode in an endless sequence of superpowers crimes.

Written for the Central Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir by
Fadl Amzayev
Head of Media Office of Hizb ut Tahrir in Ukraine