On February 24, 2022, President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation announced what he referred to as a “special military operation” against Ukraine. Although the Russian Federation claims that its intervention is consistent with international law, the vast majority of the international community has condemned this action as a blatant violation of the prohibition on the use of force.
The military intervention continues, with Russian armed forces continuing to occupy significant Ukrainian territories. Due to the Russian Federation’s permanent membership and veto power in the UN Security Council, the collective security mechanism has been effectively paralyzed in responding to Russia’s actions. Nevertheless, the UN General Assembly has adopted resolutions condemning Russia’s annexation attempts and calling for their cessation. In a display of solidarity,the international community has supported Ukraine through various political, economic, and legal measures.
This study examines the actions undertaken by third states—those not directly party to the armed conflict—in response to Russia’s internationally wrongful acts. It does so within the framework of the principle of “aggravated state responsibility.” Specifically, it analyzes how third states haves ought to end these breaches of international law by adhering to the obligations outlined in Article41 of the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA).
Drafted by the International Law Commission (ILC) as a codification of customary international law, Article 41 imposes certain obligations on states in the face of serious breaches of peremptory norms. These obligations include refraining from recognizing or supporting such breaches,denying aid or assistance to the wrongdoing state, and cooperating to bring the breach to an end.
Within this context, the study evaluates third-state actions under two broad categories: measures directed at the Ukraine and those directed at the Russian Federation. The primary aim of this study is to assess how states, acting individually or unilaterally, can uphold international law when the UN Security Council fails to act due to political deadlock. By examining state practices, this research seeks to identify the tools available under international law to ensure compliance, even in the absence of collective measures.
Furthermore, it aims to propose guiding principles for the international community when demonstrating solidarity against internationally wrongful acts. These principles are drawn from ideal state practices and offer a roadmap for effective and lawful responses to breaches of international law. This analysis contributes to ongoing discussions about the interplay between state responsibility, third-state action, and international solidarity, while also shedding light on the broader implications of unilateral measures in addressing breaches of international norms.
Keywords: international responsibility law, aggravated responsibility, international wrongful act, international community