SAI INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2022

United Nations Security Council

AGENDA: Emergency Session, announcement of special military operation in Ukraine by the Russian
Federation in February 2022.

STUDY GUIDE

Letter from the Executive Board:

Greetings delegates,

A warm welcome from the President of the United Nations Security Council. MUN conferences
generally revolve around explicitly highlighting a delegates’ prowess in terms of knowledge and
substantive inputs. However, what I in this committee would be looking forward to is the ability of a
delegate to be a diplomat and have its subsequent effect in committee. The agenda in hand provides
enough scope for delegates to select, chose and push their own personal interest in light of the national
interest of the country they’re representing, especially considering how the Russia-Ukraine conflict have
had wide implications worldwide with adequate multiplicity in foreign policies for the delegates to
defend and debate.

What we are looking forward to is the ability of delegates to be dynamic in committee, be well in terms
with the latest developments in contemporary world politics and use the mandate of the Security
Council to address specific aspect of ensuring International Peace with regard to what is happening in
Ukraine. It is definitely not about the amount of facts a speech would be loaded with, but rather about
the systematic portrayal of facts pertaining to the agenda, in sync with the foreign policy.

With the intention of simulating the UN4MUN procedure, we advise delegates to have a sound
understanding about their role-play as a country along with crucial lobbying and negotiation skills. The
study guide covers specific areas of importance in this world and intends to provide an insight into the
approach with which this committee should address them. It is hence, in no way not exhaustive and it’s
imperative that the delegates go beyond the guide and be equipped with a comprehensive idea of the
issues as a whole.

With that, we wish the delegates all the very best for committee and wait for two gripping days of
debate, diplomacy and deliberation.

Prithwiraj Basu

Pbasu183@gmail.com
Mandate of the UN Security Council:

The United Nations Charter established six main organs of the United Nations, including the Security
Council. It gives primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security to the Security
Council, which may meet whenever peace is threatened.
According to the Charter, the United Nations has four purposes:

 to maintain international peace and security;

 to develop friendly relations among nations;
 to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human rights;
 and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations.
All members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.
While other organs of the United Nations make recommendations to member states, only the Security
Council has the power to make decisions that member states are then obligated to implement under the
Charter. The Security Council held its first session on 17 January 1946 at Church House, Westminster,
London. Since its first meeting, the Security Council has taken permanent residence at the United
Nations Headquarters in New York City. It also travelled to many cities, holding sessions in Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia, in 1972, in Panama City, Panama, and in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1990. A representative of each
of its members must be present at all times at UN Headquarters so that the Security Council can meet at
any time as the need arises.
When a complaint concerning a threat to peace is brought before it, the Council’s first action is usually
to recommend that the parties try to reach agreement by peaceful means. The Council may:

 set forth principles for such an agreement;

 undertake investigation and mediation, in some cases;
 dispatch a mission;
 appoint special envoys; or
 request the Secretary-General to use his good offices to achieve a pacific settlement of the
dispute.
When a dispute leads to hostilities, the Council’s primary concern is to bring them to an end as soon as
possible. In that case, the Council may:

 issue ceasefire directives that can help prevent an escalation of the conflict;
 dispatch military observers or a peacekeeping force to help reduce tensions, separate opposing
forces and establish a calm in which peaceful settlements may be sought.

Beyond this, the Council may opt for enforcement measures, including:

 economic sanctions, arms embargoes, financial penalties and restrictions, and travel bans;
 severance of diplomatic relations;
 blockade;
 or even collective military action.
A chief concern is to focus action on those responsible for the policies or practices condemned by the
international community, while minimizing the impact of the measures taken on other parts of the
population and economy.
The Security Council is the Apex body of UN having 5 Permanent Members and 10 Non-Permanent
Members elected by the UN General Assembly for 2 year terms. It is indeed the body with the “Teeth to
Bite”, key role in all major appointments. Charged with ensuring international peace and security,
recommending the admission of new UN members to the General Assembly, and approving any changes
to the UN Charter. Its powers include establishing peacekeeping operations, enacting international
sanctions, and authorizing military action etc. The UNSC is the only UN body with the authority to issue
binding resolutions on member states.

It authorized military interventions in the Korean War and the Congo Crisis and peacekeeping missions
in the Suez Crisis, Cyprus, and West New Guinea. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, UN
peacekeeping efforts increased dramatically in scale, with the Security Council authorizing major military
and peacekeeping missions in Kuwait, Namibia, Cambodia, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Cold War:

The Security Council was largely paralyzed in its early decades by the Cold War between the US and
USSR and their allies, and the Council generally was only able to intervene in unrelated conflicts. (A
notable exception was the 1950 Security Council resolution authorizing a US-led coalition to repel
the North Korean invasion of South Korea, passed in the absence of the USSR. In 1956, the first UN
peacekeeping force was established to end the Suez Crisis, however, the UN was unable to intervene
against the USSR's simultaneous invasion of Hungary following that country's revolution. Cold War
divisions also paralyzed the Security Council's Military Staff Committee, which had been formed by
Articles 45–47 of the UN Charter to oversee UN forces and create UN military bases. The committee
continued to exist on paper but largely abandoned its work in the mid-1950s.
In 1960, the UN deployed the United Nations Operation in the Congo (UNOC), the largest military force
of its early decades, to restore order to the breakaway State of Katanga, restoring it to the control of
the Democratic Republic of the Congo by 1964. However, the Security Council found itself bypassed in
favour of direct negotiations between the superpowers in some of the decade's larger conflicts, such as
the Cuban Missile Crisis or the Vietnam War. Focusing instead on smaller conflicts without an immediate
Cold War connection, the Security Council deployed the United Nations Temporary Executive
Authority in West New Guinea in 1962 and the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus in 1964,
the latter of which would become one of the UN's longest-running peacekeeping missions.
Post Cold War:
After the Cold War, the UN saw a radical expansion in its peacekeeping duties, taking on more missions
in ten years than it had in its previous four decades. Between 1988 and 2000, the number of adopted
Security Council resolutions more than doubled, and the peacekeeping budget increased more than
tenfold. The UN negotiated an end to the Salvadoran Civil War, launched a successful peacekeeping
mission in Namibia, and oversaw democratic elections in post-apartheid South Africa and post-Khmer
Rouge Cambodia. In 1991, the Security Council demonstrated its renewed vigor by condemning the
Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on the same day of the attack, and later authorizing a US-led coalition that
successfully repulsed the Iraqis.
Though the UN Charter had been written primarily to prevent aggression by one nation against another,
in the early 1990s, the UN faced a number of simultaneous, serious crises within nations such as Haiti,
Mozambique and the former Yugoslavia. The UN mission to Bosnia faced "worldwide ridicule" for its
indecisive and confused mission in the face of ethnic cleansing. In 1994, the United Nations Assistance
Mission for Rwanda failed to intervene in the Rwandan genocide in the face of Security Council
indecision.
In the late 1990s, UN-authorized international interventions took a wider variety of forms. The UN
mission in the 1991–2002 Sierra Leone Civil War was supplemented by British Royal Marines, and the
UN-authorized 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was overseen by NATO. In 2003, the US invaded
Iraq despite failing to pass a UN Security Council resolution for authorization, prompting a new round of
questioning of the organization's effectiveness. In the same decade, the Security Council intervened
with peacekeepers in crises including the War in Darfur in Sudan and the Kivu conflict in the Democratic
Republic of Congo. In 2013, an internal review of UN actions in the final battles of the Sri Lankan Civil
War in 2009 concluded that the organization had suffered "systemic failure". In November/December
2014, Egypt presented a motion proposing an expansion of the NPT (non-Proliferation Treaty), to
include Israel and Iran; this proposal was due to increasing hostilities and destruction in the Middle-East
connected to the Syrian Conflict as well as others. All members of the Security Council are signatory to
the NPT, and all permanent members are nuclear weapons states
Role:
The UN's role in international collective security is defined by the UN Charter, which authorizes the
Security Council to investigate any situation threatening international peace; recommend procedures
for peaceful resolution of a dispute; call upon other member nations to completely or partially interrupt
economic relations as well as sea, air, postal, and radio communications, or to sever diplomatic
relations; and enforce its decisions militarily, or by any means necessary. The Security Council also
recommends the new Secretary-General to the General Assembly and recommends new states for
admission as member states of the United Nations. The Security Council has traditionally interpreted its
mandate as covering only military security, though US Ambassador Richard Holbrooke controversially
persuaded the body to pass a resolution on HIV/AIDS in Africa in 2000.
Under Chapter VI of the Charter, "Pacific Settlement of Disputes", the Security Council "may investigate
any dispute or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute". The
Council may "recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment" if it determines that the
situation might endanger international peace and security. These recommendations are generally
considered to not be binding, as they lack an enforcement mechanism. Scholars have argued that
resolutions made under Chapter VI are "still directives by the Security Council and differ only in that they
do not have the same stringent enforcement options, such as the use of military force".
Under Chapter VII, the council has broader power to decide what measures are to be taken in situations
involving "threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression." In such situations, the
council is not limited to recommendations but may take action, including the use of armed force "to
maintain or restore international peace and security." This was the legal basis for UN armed action in
Korea in 1950 during the Korean War and the use of coalition forces in Iraq and Kuwait in 1991 and Libya
in 2011. Decisions taken under Chapter VII, such as economic sanctions, are binding on UN members;
the Security Council is the only UN body with authority to issue binding resolutions.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court recognizes that the Security Council has authority
to refer cases to the Court in which the Court could not otherwise exercise jurisdiction. The Council
exercised this power for the first time in March 2005, when it referred to the Court "the situation
prevailing in Darfur since 1 July 2002"; since Sudan is not a party to the Rome Statute, the Court could
not otherwise have exercised jurisdiction. The Security Council made its second such referral in February
2011 when it asked the ICC to investigate the Libyan government's violent response to the Libyan Civil
War.
Security Council Resolution 1674, adopted on 28 April 2006, "reaffirms the provisions of paragraphs 138
and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document regarding the responsibility to protect
populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity". The Security
Council reaffirmed this responsibility to protect in Resolution 1706 on 31 August of that year. These
resolutions commit the Security Council to protect civilians in an armed conflict, including taking action
against genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity.
Veto:
Under Article 27 of the UN Charter, Security Council decisions on all substantive matters require the
affirmative votes of three-fifths (i.e. nine) of the members. A negative vote or "veto" by a permanent
member prevents adoption of a proposal, even if it has received the required votes. Abstention is not
regarded as a veto in most cases, though all five permanent members must actively concur to amend
the UN Charter or to recommend the admission of a new UN member state. Procedural matters are not
subject to a veto, so the veto cannot be used to avoid discussion of an issue. The same holds for certain
decisions that directly regard permanent members. A majority of vetoes are used not in critical
international security situations, but for purposes such as blocking a candidate for Secretary-General or
the admission of a member state.
In the negotiations building up to the creation of the UN, the veto power was resented by many small
countries, and in fact was forced on them by the veto nations—United States, United Kingdom, China,
France and Soviet Union—through a threat that without the veto there will be no UN. Max Vetoes USSR
during Cold War.
Critics:

 The Security Council's effectiveness and relevance is questioned by some because, in most high-
profile cases, there are essentially no consequences for violating a Security Council resolution.
During the Darfur crisis, Janjaweed militias, allowed by elements of the Sudanese government,
committed violence against an indigenous population, killing thousands of civilians.
  In the Srebrenica massacre, Serbian troops committed genocide against Bosniaks,
although Srebrenica had been declared a UN safe area, protected by 400 armed Dutch
peacekeepers.

 In his 2009 speech, Muammar Gaddafi criticized the Security Council's veto powers and the wars
permanent members of the Security Council engaged in.

 In his inaugural speech at the 16th Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement in August
2012, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei criticized the United Nations Security Council as having an
"illogical, unjust and completely undemocratic structure and mechanism" and called for a
complete reform of the body.

 Vetoes during Cold War and consequent bypasses, Syria-Palestine Vetoes etc.
Reform:
The permanent members, each holding the right of veto, announced their positions on Security Council
reform reluctantly. The United States has unequivocally supported the permanent membership of Japan
and lent its support to India and a small number of additional non-permanent members. The United
Kingdom and France essentially supported the G4 position, with the expansion of permanent and non-
permanent members and the accession of Germany, Brazil, India and Japan to permanent member
status, as well as an increase in the presence by African countries on the council. China has supported
the stronger representation of developing countries and firmly opposed Japan's membership.
In 2017, it was reported that the G4 nations were willing temporarily to forgo veto power if
granted permanent UNSC seats. In September 2017, a resolution in the US House of
Representatives seeking support for India for permanent membership of the United Nations Security
Council was passed. UNGA Resolution in 2015 for ‘Text Based Negotiations’ by consensus on this
regards.
Major Steps and Mandates:
Subsidiary Bodies as per Article 29 of UN Charter-
 UNSC-CTC established by UNSCR 1373 (2001), 1624 (2005) – CTC, CTED- Global CT Strategy.
 UNSC 1540 Committee established by UNSCR 1540 (2005) for Non proliferation of WMDs.
 Military Staff Committee to plan military measures and regulate armaments.
 1267 Sanctions Committee ISIL (Daesh) and Al-Qaeda.
 Peacekeeping Operations and Political Missions
 Peace-building Commission [ UNSC+ UNGA]
 ICTR & ICTY (International Residual Mechanisms for Criminal Tribunals).
Substantive Inputs on the Agenda:
Catherine the Great, the 18th century Empress Regnant of Russia, said, “I have no way to defend my
borders but to extend them.” Under her reign, the empire grew, encompassing New Russia, Crimea, the
Caucasus, Belarus and the Baltic region. Empress Catherine, like her predecessors, saw a Russia,
surrounded by ambitious powers, that was vulnerable to external threats. Joseph Stalin, defeated the
Nazis and expanded the Soviet boundaries. Vladimir Putin, annexed Crimea in 2014 and has now
mobilized 100,000 troops on the Ukraine border. Russia, is the world’s largest country by land mass but
lacks natural borders except the Arctic Ocean in the north and the Pacific in the far east.

1. Stage of Initiation:

Russia amassed a large number of troops along the Russian border with the Donbas region of eastern
Ukraine. The Donbas region is a conflict zone where Ukraine has been battling Russia-backed
separatists. Russia has claimed that this action is in response to the steady eastward expansion of the
U.S.-led North Atlantic Organisation (NATO), gradual expansion of military aid pouring into Ukraine from
NATO member countries and Ukraine’s recent statement over the Crimea issue.

Russia along its western borders were in close proximity with NATO states like Turkey, Bulgaria, and
Romania. Even former constituents of the erstwhile Soviet Union such as Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia
have become NATO members. Georgia and Ukraine are also aspiring to become members of NATO. Ever
since Russia seized Crimea from Ukraine in March 2014 and war broke out in eastern Ukraine a month
after, bilateral relations between the two countries have been fraught. Ukraine and the West have
accused Russia of preparing for an invasion. The U.S. had warned that any such move from Russia would
invite some counteraction from it. Russia has, in turn, accused the West of ‘anti-Russia’ hysteria.
Tensions have been escalating along the volatile Russia-Ukraine border.

Russia’s message:

The Russian Foreign Minister told the U.S. Secretary of State that Russia is looking forward to guarantees
that would halt NATO’s eastward expansion while also stressing that Ukraine should not be allowed to
join NATO. The Russian Foreign Minister also warned that the failure to do so would force Russia to take
up retaliatory measures to maintain the military-strategic balance along its western borders by holding
on to its domain of influence in the bordering countries of Belarus and Ukraine.

Analysis of the development:

While the exact reasons for Russia’s military build-up cannot be deduced, most strategic experts initially
believed that an actual invasion is unlikely. Rather, the move could be interpreted as a stern warning
against any plans to escalate NATO activities or presence in Ukraine against the security interests of
Russia. Some analysts believe that Russia is using this development to test NATO’s (and the U.S.’s)
strategic will to get involved in case things escalate in Ukraine at a time when the U.S. has categorically
claimed China to be its primary security threat and has shifted its attention to the Asia-Pacific theatre. In
the event of Russia actually invading Ukraine, it remains doubtful if NATO would intervene militarily to
protect Ukraine, which is currently not a member of NATO. The U.S. will mostly increase economic
sanctions against Russia; possibly against the Nord Stream-2 pipeline, which delivers Russian gas directly
to Germany.

Russia is seeking assurances from the US that Ukraine would not be admitted to NATO as it puts a big
number of troops closer to the border. The US, on the other hand, has made it clear that it is not willing
to provide such assurances. Many see the situation in Ukraine as part of a resurgent geopolitical
competition between the West and Russia. In order to obtain sanctions relief and other concessions
from the West, Russia is keeping tensions near the Ukraine border high. To prevent military action,
frantic diplomatic efforts involving US, European, Ukrainian, and Russian officials are underway.

The full implementation of the Minsk Peace Accords seems to be the best bet for peace along the
volatile Russia-Ukraine border. The Minsk Protocol was an agreement signed by representatives of
Ukraine, Russia, OSCE, and the then heads of the two separatist groups, Donetsk People’s Republic and
Luhansk People’s Republic, to end the war in the Donbas region. It enjoins Ukraine to devolve more
powers to the local governments controlled by the separatist groups in the Donbas region. The Minsk
deal has never been enforced. Ukraine and Russia have shared cultural, linguistic, and family ties for
hundreds of years. Ukraine was the Soviet Union’s second-most powerful republic after Russia, and it
played a critical geopolitical, economic, and cultural role. Ukraine has borders with both the EU and
Russia, but being a former Soviet republic, it has strong social and cultural links with Russia, with Russian
being widely spoken.

Russia has long opposed Ukraine’s progress toward European institutions and one of its main demands
is that it never joins NATO or has NATO facilities on its territory. Russia, according to Ukraine, has
dispatched tanks, artillery, and snipers to the front lines in rebel-held territory. The alleged 90,000-plus
Russian military within striking distance of the Ukrainian border is causing the most alarm. Russia,
according to Western intelligence services and Ukraine, might represent a serious danger in early 2022

2. Important Stakeholders:

US and EU

The US remains committed to Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty being restored. It rejects
Russia’s claims to Crimea and urges Russia and Ukraine to use the Minsk accords to address the Donbas
conflict. In the event of military action on the Ukraine border, US and EU officials have suggested they
may slap tough penalties on Russia if diplomatic attempts to avert the invasion fail. Any military action
by the United States or the European Union against Russia would spark a global catastrophe.

NATO

NATO countries conduct cooperative military exercises with Ukraine on a yearly basis, such as Sea
Breeze and Rapid Trident. Ukraine’s ambition is to join NATO as a full member in the future, despite the
fact that it is now a non-member. Ukraine was one of just six Enhanced Opportunity Partners, a unique
designation reserved for NATO’s closest allies, such as Australia, in 2020.

Reasons for defensive aggressiveness of Russia:

 There are no natural barriers that stop invading forces from its western borders (Europe)
reaching the Russian heartland.
 Russia has seen two devastating invasions from the west in 1812, attack by Napoleonic France
and in 1941 attack by Nazi Germany. Russia successfully defended both, but suffered huge
material and human losses.
 After the Second World War, Russia re-established its control over the rim lands in Eastern
Europe and Central Asia, which it hoped would protect its heartland.
 The disintegration of the Soviet Union again deepened its historical insecurity. This insecurity is
the source of what is called the “defensive aggressiveness” of Russia.

NATO’s Threats:

When the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia lost over three million square kilometres of sovereign territory
and the heartland was vulnerable to future threats. The West had promised that the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) would not “expand an inch to the east”.

But despite the promises, NATO continued its expansion. In March 1999, the Czech Republic, Hungary
and Poland (all were members of the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact) joined NATO. Five years later, seven
more countries including the three Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, all of which share
borders with Russia joined the alliance. Russia saw this as a direct challenge to its security.

In 2008, when the U.S. promised membership to Georgia and Ukraine in the Bucharest summit, Russia,
which was coming out of the post-Soviet retreat, responded forcefully. Russia sent troops to Georgia
over the separatist conflict in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. And in 2014, when the Kremlin-friendly
regime of Ukraine was toppled by pro-western protesters, Russia moved to annex the Crimean
peninsula, expanding Russia’s Black Sea coast.

3. Contextual Insights:

Recent Developments:

 In recent years, Mr. Putin has tried to turn every crisis in the former Soviet region into a
geopolitical opportunity for Russia.
  South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the self-proclaimed republics that broke away from Georgia, are
controlled by Russia-backed forces.
 In Ukraine, the eastern Donbas region is in the hands of pro-Russian rebels.
 In 2020, when protests erupted in Belarus after a controversial presidential election, Mr. Putin
sent assistance to the country to restore order.
 In 2020, Russia sent thousands of “peacekeepers” to end the war between Armenia and
Azerbaijan, re-establishing its strategic dominance in the Caucasus.
 In 2022, Belarus leader Alexander Lukashenko, with Mr. Putin’s backing, manufactured a
migrant crisis on the Polish border of the European Union.
 Again in 2022, when violent unrest broke out in Kazakhstan, the largest and wealthiest country
in Central Asia, its leader turned to Russia for help and a willing Mr. Putin immediately
dispatched troops under Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) to quell the protests.

The Geopolitical Situations favouring Russia:

 By destabilizing Georgia and Ukraine and re-establishing Russia’s hold in Belarus, Caucasus and
Central Asia, Russia has stopped NATO’s further expansions.
 The U.S.’s withdrawal from Afghanistan has resulted in Afghans’ deeper ties with Russia.
Having failed to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan, NATO is unlikely to start a war with Russia
over Ukraine.
 While Europe is vocal about its opposition to Russia’s aggressive actions, it is currently
dependent on Russian gas, which limits its response.
 Moreover, the West’s inability to inflict any serious damage on Russia over its Crimea
annexation appears to have empowered Russia further.
 One weapon that is available to the west is more economic sanctions. But deepened Russia’s
ties with China to meet its strategic goals have balanced against the West’s economic coercion.

Enlargement of NATO

NATO is a military alliance of twenty-eight European and two North American countries that constitutes
a system of collective defense. Enlargement of NATO is the process of including new member states in
NATO. Since the German unification in 1990, NATO has added new members five times. The alliance had
12 founding members in 1949, which currently has 30 members, Members include three Baltic countries
of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania that share borders with Russia. Members also include Hungary, Poland,
Romania and Bulgaria, all of them being a part of the former Soviet-led Warsaw Pact.

Russia’s demands

 Russia has demanded a ban on further expansion of NATO that includes countries like Ukraine
and Georgia that share Russia’s borders .
 Russia asked NATO to pull back its military deployments to the 1990s level and prohibit the
deployment of intermediate range missiles in the bordering areas.
  Further, Russia asked NATO to curb its military cooperation with Ukraine and other former
Soviet republics.
 Russia not just wants to prevent NATO’s future expansion but also its retrieval from Russia’s rim
land.
 Russia has also asked for a written response by the U.S. to its proposals regarding security
guarantees and official commitments for non-expansion of NATO eastwards.

The response from the U.S.

 The U.S. has given a written response to the Kremlin, which hasn’t been released. The public
remarks by top officials suggest that the U.S. has taken a mixed stand of diplomacy and
economic deterrence.
 The U.S. has ruled out changing NATO’s “open door policy” that means, NATO would continue to
induct more members.
 The U.S. also says it would continue to offer training and weapons to Ukraine.
 The U.S. is said to be open for a discussion regarding missile deployment and a mutual reduction
in military exercises in Eastern Europe.
 The U.S. has ruled out sending troops to Ukraine or other military measures against Russia in the
event of an invasion. However, it has threatened to impose severe economic sanctions on Russia
in case of any military move.

4. Mechanisms and Recourses:

Normandy Format

The Normandy format is a diplomatic grouping created in June 2014 with the aim of finding a peaceful
resolution to the conflict in Ukraine due to Russia’s military aggression. It is an informal forum that was
set up by France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine. It takes its name from the Normandy landings in the
second world war.

Minsk Protocol

The Minsk Protocol is an agreement signed by representatives of Ukraine, Russia, OSCE, and the then
heads of the two separatist groups, Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic, to end
the war in the Donbas region. The accords call for a general amnesty for the rebels, constitutional
amendments giving the breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine more autonomy and the handing over of
Ukraine’s borders to its army. The Minsk deal has never been enforced.

What are the Minsk Agreements?

There are two Minsk agreements which are named after the Belarusian capital Minsk where the talks
were held.

 Minsk 1:
Minsk 1 was written in 2014 by the Trilateral Contact Group on Ukraine, i.e. Ukraine, Russia, and the
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). It was mediated by France and Germany in
the so-called Normandy Format. Under Minsk 1, Ukraine and the Russia-backed rebels agreed on a 12-
point ceasefire deal, which included prisoner exchanges, delivery of humanitarian assistance, and the
withdrawal of heavy weapons. However, due to violations by both sides, the agreement did not last
long.

 Minsk 2:

In 2015, representatives of Russia, Ukraine, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE) and the leaders of Donetsk and Luhansk signed a 13-point agreement . It is known as the Minsk 2
accord. The new agreement had provisions for an immediate cease-fire, dialogue on interim self-
government for Donetsk and Luhansk, in accordance with Ukrainian law, with specific mention of
Donetsk and Luhansk, elections in Donetsk and Luhansk, full Ukrainian Government control throughout
the conflict zone and calls to Ukraine to restore control of state borders, etc.

However, these provisions have not been implemented because of what is popularly known as the
‘Minsk Conundrum’. While Ukraine believes the accord supports its sovereignty fully, Russia believes it
only gives Ukraine limited sovereignty.

Can implementing the Minsk Agreement avert war?

1. The immediate implementation of the Minsk 2 agreement is one of Russia’s main demands to
the West.
2. The accord could serve as a starting point for establishing a diplomatic solution to the current
crisis.
3. It could aid Ukraine in regaining control of its borders and putting an end to the threat of a
Russian invasion for the time being.
4. It could be a means for Russia to ensure that Ukraine never joins NATO and that Russian
language and culture are safeguarded in a new federal Constitution in Ukraine.

Differences within the western bloc on Russia

 The U.S. – Threatened to shut down Russia’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline in the event of a Russian
invasion.
 Germany – Germany has barred Estonia, a NATO member that shares a border with Russia, from
supplying arms to Ukraine
 Hungary – It has stated that Russia’s demands were reasonable.
 France – It has suggested that the West must respect Russia.

Russia has sent its troops as being ‘Russian Peacekeeping Forces’, to protect the separatists and Russian
ethnic minorities who populate the region. The move has outraged the United States and the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and calls from the rest of the world for de-escalation. The two
provinces of Ukraine have been asserting independence since the annexation of Crimea in 2014.
The provinces populated mainly by Russian ethnic minorities striving for independence, separatist
leaders supported by Russia seized these regions and declared the ‘People’s Republics of Donetsk and
Lugansk’ in 2014.

Peace talks so far-

 The NATO-led by the U.S. feels that Russia’s recognition of this independence and the building
of its army on the Ukrainian border is a violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and international law.
However, Russia justifies its position as safeguarding its own as well as the security of ethnic
Russians living in the regions.
 Talks between Russia, Ukraine and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
(OSCE) led to the Minsk Protocols of 2014 and 2015. This Protocol proposed a ceasefire,
decentralising power without recognising the autonomous Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk, a
pulling out of forces and heavy weaponry 15 kilometres from the Line of Contact. However,
violations of the ceasefire have led to the death of 14,000 people in the fighting between the
Ukrainian army and Moscow-supported rebels.
 Talks again between France, Germany, Ukraine with Russia, called the Normandy-Paris Process
in 2019, have not seen success as Russians want a legal guarantee of security that the West
refuses.

Consequences of Ukraine joining the NATO

1. NATO membership would give Ukraine the strength to regain the autonomous regions of
Luhansk, Donbas and also Crimea and hold the ports in the Black Sea region.
2. NATO has expanded to include 13 former Central East European countries, all of which are well
armed and where Russia poses the major threat.
3. NATO missiles in Ukraine could reach Moscow in about five minutes. Through the 1990s after
the Soviet collapse, a weakened Russia made repeated offers of collaboration, equal treatment
and better relations. Russian leaders were promised that NATO would not expand eastwards.
However many central east European states joined NATO.
4. The OSCE and Europe’s Paris Charter signed mutual cooperation for steps forward in peace and
security with Russia in 1990. Russia made several concessions from the 1990s to accommodate
NATO positions including in Serbia. The Russia-NATO Partnership for Peace of 1994 and the
NATO-Russia Founding Act 1997 committed that NATO and Russian security would not be
undermined. The 1999 OSCE-Charter for European Security declared that the security of
countries in Europe would not be undermined at the expense of the other.
5. Ukraine is the rimland and bridge between Russia and Europe, all the attacks on Russia, from
Napoleon to Hitler, came through Ukraine. Also, Russia’s route to Europe for transport and oil
pipelines is through Ukraine.

The U.S. has gained traction-

The faceoff with Russia has provided the U.S. with several opportunities. The dominant narrative is that
Ukraine is a sovereign nation that has the right to join NATO. Russia’s actions of sending an army as
peacekeepers will lead to heavy sanctions that could hurt and isolate Russia. Russia has provided the
U.S. the opportunity to strengthen a weakening European alliance. Although France and Germany have
been taking independent actions, they have been forced to accept U.S. leadership, presence and control
in Europe. The Nord Stream pipeline that is ready to be used will suffer delays and this will affect Russia,
Germany and Europe.

5. Russia launched an all-out attack on Ukraine through land, air and sea:

The attacks by Russia are considered as the biggest attack by one state against another in Europe since
the Second World War. Russian missile attacks were reported in the Ukrainian cities, much to the shock
of the international community.

Ukraine reported the arrival of multiple troops across its borders in the Chernihiv, Kharkiv and Luhansk
regions, and by sea at the cities of Odessa and Mariupol.

Russia’s Stand

Russia’s President Mr. Putin declared that he has ordered “a special military operation” to protect
people, including Russian citizens who had been subjected to “genocide” in Ukraine, “for this we will
strive for the demilitarisation and denazification of Ukraine”. Russia’s Defence Ministry said its military
destroyed 83 Ukrainian land-based targets and achieved all its goals in Ukraine for the day.

Violations of international laws by Russia

1. The UN Charter

The principle of non-intervention is enshrined in article 2(4) of the UN Charter. It demands the states to
avoid using force or threat of using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any
state. The Russian attack on Ukraine is violative of the principle and amounts to aggression under
international law.

2. The UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (1974)

The resolution defines aggression as the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial
integrity or political independence of another state.

Also, allowing one’s territory to be used by another state for aggression against a third state, would
qualify as an act of aggression. Hence, Belarus can also be held responsible for aggression as it has
allowed its territory to be used by Russia for attacking Ukraine.

Aggression is also considered an international crime under customary international law and the Rome
statute establishing the International Criminal Court.

Ukraine’s Response
Ukraine’s President said that Russia aims to destroy his state. The Ukrainian Foreign Minister said “This
is a war of aggression and Ukraine will defend itself and will win. He also asked for the world to come
together and stop Russia”.

The principle of self-defence

In wake of the use of force by Russia, Ukraine has the right to self-defence under international law. The
UN Charter under article 51 authorizes states to resort to individual or collective self-defence, until the
Security Council takes steps to ensure international peace and security.

As Russia is a permanent member and has veto powers, it looks impossible for the UNSC to arrive at a
decision Hence, Ukraine has a right under international law to request assistance from other states in
the form of military assistance, supply of weapons etc.

Russia’s claims of self-defence

Russia has also claimed that it is acting in self-defence. Russia claims that Ukraine may acquire nuclear
weapons with the help of western allies. However, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Legality
of Threat of Nuclear Weapons case held that mere possession of nuclear weapons does not constitute a
threat. Even if Ukraine has, or were to acquire nuclear weapons in the future, it does not become a
ground for invoking self defence by Russia.

Further, mere membership in a defence alliance such as NATO cannot necessarily be considered as a
threat of aggression against Russia. Russia can also not invoke anticipatory self defence as such
invocation according to the Caroline test.

Caroline Test

The Caroline test is a 19th-century customary international law, reaffirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunal
post the Second World War. The law says that the necessity for preemptive self-defense must be
“instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.”

Response by UN

The United Nations Secretary General at a Security Council meeting, asked Russia to stop the attack on
Ukraine and to “give peace a chance.”

Response by the West

1. The U.S. – The President said that America and its allies would respond decisively and unitedly.
He also said that the world will hold Russia accountable and will announce further consequences
on Russia in the coming days.
2. France – Said that the country strongly condemns the attacks and asked Russia to immediately
put an end to its military operations.
3. The U.K. – Said that Russia has chosen a path of bloodshed and destruction by launching the
attack.
Sanctions

The U.S. along with the NATO and European Commission leadership vowed to impose “severe
sanctions” on Russia that will overlay prior economic penalties imposed on Russian entities. Sanctions
are expected to include cutting off top Russian banks from the financial system, halting technology
exports, and directly targeting the Russian President.

6. Historical Reflection of Contemporary Geopolitics:

Russia launched a full scale military invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Russia stated that the reason
behind this aggression was the eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
Russia feels that Ukraine becoming a member in the future would threaten its interests by bringing a
formidable security coalition into the neighbourhood of Russia.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)

NATO was signed in April 1949, with three objectives:

 Deterring Soviet expansionism,

 Forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American
presence on the continent
 Encouraging European political integration.

The history of the Nazi troubles and World War II were the main reasons for its creation. NATO claims
that its creation was to check the threats from the then Soviet Union. There is a strong emphasis on
military cooperation and collective defence in its mandate. For example, Article 5 says that “an armed
attack against one or more of them, shall be considered an attack against them all” and that following
such an attack, each member would take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed
force” in response.

Warsaw Pact

In 1955, when the Cold War was getting stronger, the Soviet Union signed up socialist republics of
Central and Eastern Europe to the Warsaw Pact. The pact included Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia,
East Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Romania. The Pact, was mainly a political-military alliance aimed at
countering NATO and its focus was on East Germany which was still a part of the Soviet occupied-
territory of Germany,

The Federal Republic of Germany partnered with NATO in 1955, and Russia started to worry about the
consequences of a strong and rearmed West Germany at its border. As a unified, multilateral, political
and military alliance, the Warsaw Pact was aimed at connecting Eastern European capitals to Russia,
which it succeeded for many decades despite the Cold War. The Pact allowed the Soviet Union to
suppress civil uprisings across the European satellite states, including in Hungary (1956), Czechoslovakia
(1968), and Poland (1980). The pact started to weaken in the late 1980s, due to the pressure of
economic slowdown in most of the European allies, which reduced the potential for military
cooperation.

In September 1990 that East Germany quit the Pact to be reunified with West Germany, and soon
Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Poland withdrew from the Warsaw Pact. The Pact was dissolved in early
1991, post the disintegration of the Soviet Union.

Expansion by the NATO

As the Soviet Union was disintegrated, NATO started to expand its presence. NATO successfully
negotiated and expanded to include former Warsaw Pact states as its members.

 Germany continued to be a member of NATO after its reunification.

 The Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland joined the alliance in 1999.
 In 2004, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia joined NATOAgain, in
2009 Albania and Croatia signed up.
 In 2017, Montenegro joined the organization along with North Macedonia’s in 2020.

Russia’s concerns on the Expansion of NATO

In 2008, NATO allies offered membership to Ukraine and Georgia. NATO announced measures to engage
with both countries at a high political level to address their issues regarding their Membership Action
Plan. This concerned Russia, because Ukraine is a country that was considered to have strong historic
ties first to the Soviet Union and then Russia.

This development prompted Russia to warn the NATO led by the U.S. and stated that “no Russian leader
could stand idly by in the face of steps toward NATO membership for Ukraine. That would be a hostile
act toward Russia.” This is considered the main reason for the recent Russian aggression in Ukraine.

In the speech, Putin blamed Soviet leaders, especially Lenin for the disintegration of “historical Russia”.
Putin said that Lenin’s idea of building the country “on the principles of autonomisation” (right of self-
determination, of secession) led to the fall of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).

The USSR’s collapse

The fall of the Soviet Union started in the late 1980s with protests in the Eastern Bloc and in Soviet
republics along with the Soviet exit from Afghanistan. The Soviet Union sent troops to Afghanistan in
1979. After 10 years of fighting the Mujahideen, who were backed by the U.S., Pakistan and Saudi
Arabia, the Soviets had to withdraw in 1989. Later, the Soviet-backed communist regimes in Eastern
Europe started collapsing, practically bringing the Cold War to an end.

It started in Poland, which hosted the headquarters of the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact security alliance.

In June 1989, the anti-communist Solidarity movement, won elections in Poland, leading to the fall of
communist rule. Protests spread to Hungary, East Germany, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and Romania.
In November 1989, the Berlin Wall that had separated the capitalist West Berlin and the communist
east, fell, leading to the German reunification. Domestically, the Soviet Union was going through an
economic crisis, there was a fall in foreign trade. Lower oil prices led to a fall in state revenues and an
explosion in debt. Although decentralization and opening up of the economy for foreign trade were
introduced that made the nationalists in the Soviet republics stronger, the reforms failed to revitalize
the economy.

Soviet disintegration

 The fall of communist states in the Eastern Bloc and the economic crisis in the country had
weakened Russia’s hold over the Union.
 In 1988, Estonia became the first Soviet administrative unit to declare sovereignty inside the
Union
 In 1990, Lithuania became the first to declare independence from the USSR.
 After the German reunification, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) expanded to East
Germany.
 The crisis spread across the Soviet republics as Russia planned to decentralize the central
government’s powers to the 15 republics through the New Union Treaty, which was also a bid to
renegotiate the original treaty that established the USSR in 1922.
 In 1991, a group of communist leaders, including top military and civilian leaders, tried to take
power in their hands by coup. Even as the coup failed, this further weakened Russia’s power.
 In December 1991, leaders of three Soviet republics of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus signed the
Belavezha Accords, announcing that the USSR ceased to exist.

Belavezha Accords

The Belovezh Accords is the agreement that declared that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR)
had effectively ceased to exist. The agreement was signed in Belovezh (Belarus) in December 1991.
Belavezha Accords also announced the establishment of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)
that would replace the USSR. The accord was signed by the leaders of three republics who had earlier
signed the 1922 Treaty on the Creation of the USSR.

Russia’s relations with the former Soviet States

 Russia retains huge influence on Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,

Moldova, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.
 Russia has formed a security organization named the Collective Security Treaty Organisation
(CSTO), with former Soviet republics. Members of CSTO include Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan and Russia.
 Russia maintains a military presence in Transnistria, a breakaway republic from Moldova
 Russia has dispatched troops to the borders of Armenia and Azerbaijan in 2020, to end a conflict
between the two countries over Nagorno Karabakh.
 Out of the 15 countries that became independent after the fall of the Soviet Union, The three
Baltic countries Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, all sharing borders with Russia, became members
 of NATO in 2004. Ukraine and Georgia were offered NATO membership in 2008. In 2008 Russia
sent troops to Georgia to protect two breakaway republics South Ossetia and Abkhazia from
Georgian troops.
 In 2014, Russia annexed the Crimean republic, a Black Sea Peninsula, from Ukraine.
 Russia also recently recognized Luhansk and Donetsk in the Donbas region of Ukraine as
independent and sent troops.

Russia’s tensions with Ukraine

Post its independence in 1991, Ukraine adopted a neutral foreign policy. Ukraine was one of the
founding members of the CIS, but did not join the CSTO. Though Ukraine stayed away from NATO, the
offer of membership in 2008 started changing equations between Russia and Ukraine. Post the regime
of pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovych in 2014, a pro-West government was established in Ukraine.

Russia acted swiftly by annexing Crimea and by supporting separatist rebels in Donbas. Ukraine exited
the CIS and added its desire to join NATO into its Constitution. These developments further escalated
the tensions and eventually led to the current crisis.

Analysing of Russia’s actions

In early 1990 with the Two Plus Four meeting that included East and West Germany plus the United
States, France, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom; a decision was made on whether a unified
Germany would be part of NATO. In this meeting, a U.S. leader in 1990 had stated that “there would be
no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east.”

It was a difficult time in Russian politics, domestically, because in the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s
disintegration, there was a failure to institutionalize democratic practices, a stable market economy, and
a robust law and order system. In this time of crisis the then Russian President interpreted the Two Plus
Four Treaty as a ban on NATO expansion east of Germany. Russia uses this statement to justify its
outrage against NATO’s expansion towards its rim lands.

Even in the 2000s, Russia continued this stance with increasing alarm and anger at NATO’s steady
expansion into Eastern Europe. In 2008, following NATO’s offer of membership to Georgia and Ukraine,
Russia invaded Georgia and took control of several of its territorial regions. In 2014, with Ukraine
moving much closer towards an economic alliance with the European Union, Russia entered into
Ukraine and annexed Crimea.

Sanctions on Russia:

1. SWIFT ban:

The US and European officials are finalizing an “extensive package” of sanctions which could target
major Russian banks and its energy sector, with the possibility of Russia being excluded from the SWIFT
financial system. SWIFT system stands for the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial
Telecommunication and is a secure platform for financial institutions to exchange information about
global financial transactions such as money transfers.

2. Nord Stream 2:

The package of sanctions prepared by the European Union in case Russia invades Ukraine includes
measures targeting the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. Nord Stream is a gas pipeline that connects Russia to
Germany via the Baltic Sea.

7. Russia’s armed invasion of Ukraine has increased hostilities and caused large-scale destruction
of infrastructure in Ukraine.

Russia’s decision to recognise the self-declared Donetsk and Luhansk republics practically brought the
Minsk peace process to an end. The Minsk 1 and II accords, reached in 2014 and 2015, had brought a
tenuous ceasefire between the Russian-backed rebels in Ukraine’s Donbas region.

As the Russian troops continue their operations in Ukraine, the claims of human rights violations have
cropped up. Russia has denied the accusations of harming civilians. The Geneva Conventions have come
into the foreground amidst the increasing casualties of civilians.

The Geneva Conventions

 It is a set of rules that prescribe guidelines for combatant behaviour during a war.
 It comprises four treaties, standardised in 1949.
 Three more protocols were later added which codify ethical and legal international norms for
the humanitarian treatment of civilians who are affected by the war.

The convention mainly focuses on,

 Treatment of civilians and prisoners of war

 Restricting the use of conventional or biological and chemical weapons
 The Conventions have been ratified by 196 states, including all UN member states.

The Four Geneva Conventions

1. First Convention – It safeguards wounded and sick soldiers on land during the war. The
convention also extends to medical and religious personnel.
2. Second Convention – safeguards wounded, sick and shipwrecked military personnel at sea
during the war. This Convention replaced the Hague Convention of 1907 for the Adaptation to
Maritime Warfare of the Principles of the Geneva Convention. This convention also extends to
hospital ships and medical transports by sea.
3. Third Convention – It is the most famous convention among all and it applies to the prisoners of
war. It includes a wide range of guidelines with respect to the humane treatment of prisoners,
conditions of captivity, evacuation of prisoners, transit camps, food, clothing, medical facilities,
 and hygiene. It also guarantees rights to religious, intellectual, and physical activities for the
prisoners.
4. Fourth Convention – Unlike other conventions that protect the military personnel, this
convention extends protection to the civilians including those in occupied territory.

Additional Protocols

 Additional Protocols of 1977 – Further increased the protection to the victims of international
(Protocol I) and non-international (Protocol II) armed conflicts.
 Protocol II was the first-ever international treaty dedicated exclusively to the instances of non-
international armed conflicts.
 Additional Protocols of 2005 – Created the Red Crystal as an additional emblem that has the
same international status as that of Red Cross and Red Crescent emblems.

International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)

ICRC was established in 1863 as an independent and neutral organization. It is mandated to protect
human life and health, to ensure respect for all human beings, and to prevent and alleviate human
suffering. It has its headquarters in Geneva (Switzerland).

The ICRC is funded by voluntary contributions from the States party to the Geneva Conventions, Red
Cross and Red Crescent Societies, public and private donors. ICRC has been awarded the Nobel Peace
Prize three times in 1917, 1944 and 1963.

Steps for prosecution under the Conventions

 According to Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), ICC has
jurisdiction over war crimes, especially “when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of
a large-scale commission of such crimes.” Under the statute, ‘war crimes’ include:
 Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions
 Wilful killing, torture, inhuman treatment, biological experiments, extensive destruction
and appropriation of property
 Compelling prisoners of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile
Power and willfully depriving them of the rights to fair and regular trial
 Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement
 Taking hostages

For prosecuting combatants for war crimes, evidence could be collected for an investigation and trial at
the ICC.

Application of the conventions in the Russia-Ukraine War

 The U.S., alleging that Russia has committed war crimes in Ukraine, has called for an
investigation.
  There have been photographic and video evidence of lethal firing on civilians and video evidence
of bombing on schools, houses, and apartment buildings across Ukraine. Experts argue that
much of such evidence does not answer the main question of who ordered which crime. The
evidence must include information on orders received from commanding officers.
 To examine such evidence, the ICC has started an investigation under its prosecutor. However,
in 2019, foreseeing the possibility of its invasion of Ukraine, Russia withdrew its declaration
under Article 90 of Protocol 1. By withdrawing this declaration, Russia has the option of refusing
access to international fact-finding missions or individuals to the Russian entities, who can hold
Russia responsible for the violation of the Geneva Conventions.
 Further, the four conventions and the two additional protocols of 1977 were ratified by the
Soviet Union, and not by Russia, hence the Russian government can deny any responsibilities
under the Conventions.

Current Relevance of the Geneva Conventions

In 2019, Amnesty International said that there has been an evident disregard for civilian protection and
international humanitarian law in armed conflicts where four (Russia, U.S., U.K. and France) of the five
permanent members of the UN Security Council are involved. Amnesty quoted the examples of-

 The U.S.-led coalition’s attack on Raqqa in Syria, which killed 1,600 civilians.
 Destruction of civilian infrastructure and affecting the lives of many in Aleppo and Idlib by
Russian forces.
 The war in Yemen where Saudi Arabia and the UAE-led coalition killed and injured thousands of
civilians triggering a large-scale humanitarian crisis.

Recent events highlight the fact that the Geneva Conventions, further backed by the ICC orders, have
not been enforced by third parties against the conflicts. However, the conventions in the past have been
successful in increasing global awareness on human rights violations across conflict zones, and also have
led to sanctions against the violators.

8. Ukraine approached the International Court of Justice (ICJ), denying any acts of genocide
against the allegations made by Russia.

Russia has defended its military operation in Ukraine as a retaliation to the act of genocide against the
Russian-speaking people in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. In this context, Ukraine approached ICJ (a
principal judicial organ of the UN) and requested the court to hold that no acts of genocide defined
under the Genocide Convention 1948 have been committed by Ukraine. Ukraine also sought the court
to suspend Russia’s military operations in Ukraine immediately and ensure that Russia would not
aggravate it further. The ICJ ordered Russia to immediately suspend all its military advances in Ukraine.

Genocide Convention 1948

The Convention on the prohibition of genocide was passed by the General Assembly in 1948 and came
into effect in 1951. The Article II of the Convention describes genocide as carrying out acts intended “to
destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group”.

Objectives of the Convention:

1. Prevention of genocide as well as the punishment of the crime.

2. Legal obligations on states that are party to the convention include the obligation not to commit
genocide.

Russia and Ukraine along with India are parties to the Genocide Convention.

The Jurisdiction of ICJ

 Article 36(1) of the Statute of the ICJ mentions that the ICJ will have jurisdiction in all matters
relating to the UN Charter, or other treaties or conventions that are in force.
 The Article IX of the Genocide Convention 1948 mentions that the disputes between states
relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Genocide Convention, as well as
those relating to the responsibility of a state for genocide shall be submitted to the ICJ at the
request of any of the parties to the dispute. The powers of ICJ to indicate provisional measures

Article 41 of the Statute of the ICJ, empowers the court to provide provisional measures to protect the
rights of the parties involved. The parties to the dispute and the UN Security Council have to be notified
of such provisional measures provided by the court.

 In the LaGrand (2001) case between Germany and the U.S. relating to the denial of consular
access to a German national in the U.S., the ICJ clarified that such provisional measures are
binding in nature and set up international legal obligations. The provisional measures may be
provided by the ICJ on the request of a state party or also suo moto. Also, in the Tehran
Hostages Case (1980) the court ruled that the absence of one of the parties concerned cannot
itself be an obstacle to the indication of provisional measures.

In the recent hearing, the court proceeded to decide the case despite the absence of Russia in the oral
proceedings.

Conditions on the powers of ICJ

 In the Gambia v. Myanmar (2020) case (genocide of Rohingyas in Myanmar), the court ruled
that it would use the power to provide provisional measures only if it is satisfied that rights
which are being asserted by the party which is requesting provisional measures are “at least
plausible”.
 There should be a link between the provisional measure which has been requested and the
plausible right that is to be protected.
 There must be a “real and imminent risk” of “irreparable prejudice” to the rights claimed before
the ICJ.
  The court has held that the loss of human lives, harm to the environment, and the refugee crisis
are all instances of irreparable harm.

Relevance in Russia-Ukraine conflict

The ICJ in the Ukraine case held that Ukraine has a plausible “right of not being subjected to military
operations by Russian forces for the purpose of punishing and preventing alleged acts of genocide.” The
ICJ does not have the mechanism to ensure the enforcement of the judgment.

However, Article 94(2) under the UN Charter mentions that if a state fails to perform obligations
prescribed by ICJ, the UN Security Council (UNSC) can take up necessary actions to give effect to the
judgment. This possibility is not viable as Russia has veto power in the UNSC. Stalemate in the UNSC
empowers the UN General Assembly (UNGA) to recommend measures for the peaceful settlement of
the situation. In the Nicaragua v U.S. (1984) case, when the U.S. refused to accept the ICJ decision, and
the UNSC was deadlocked, the UNGA adopted several resolutions condemning the U.S.’s behaviour.
Further, the Uniting for Peace Resolution of 1950 by the UNGA during the Korean War, empowers UNGA
to take up any matter which threatens international peace and security, and to make relevant
recommendations.

The power of the UNGA to ‘recommend measures for peaceful adjustment’ has been upheld by the ICJ
in many previous instances. Russia’s absence in the oral proceedings has reflected its disrespect for
international law and international institutions. If Russia does not comply with the provisional measures
of the ICJ, the reputational harm to its regime will only be compounded. Non-compliance with
provisional measures will justify counter actions against Russia.

9. A senior Ukrainian police officer has accused Russian forces of launching phosphorus bomb
attacks in the eastern region of Luhansk.

White phosphorus shells are prohibited in densely populated civilian areas under international law. But
they are permitted in open places to provide cover for troops.

Phosphorus shell

It’s a colorless or yellowish translucent wax-like substance with a garlic-like odour that ignites when
exposed to oxygen. Its fire is difficult to put out, and it adheres to flesh, intensifying the burns. It’s what
the Nazis referred to as a “flaming onion.”

International Law to Ban Phosphorus shell

White phosphorus is classified as an incendiary weapon under international law.

It is defined as “any weapon or ammunition that is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause
burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or a combination thereof, produced by a
chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target” by Protocol III of the Convention on the
Prohibition of the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons.
About The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons

The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) is frequently referred to as the Convention on
Inhumane Weapons. The Convention was signed by 50 countries and became effective on December 2,
1983. The Convention’s purpose is to prohibit or limit the use of specified types of weapons that are
thought to cause needless or unjustifiable suffering to combatants or to indiscriminately affect civilians.

Three protocols are appended to the Convention:

Protocol I – Non-Detectable Fragments

Protocol II – Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby Traps and Other Devices

Protocol III – Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons

10. Russia’s membership in the Human Rights Council (HRC) was suspended (April 12, 2022)

Russia was elected as a member of the Human Rights Council (HRC) in 2020. In the wake of the invasion
of Ukraine a resolution for the “Suspension of the rights of membership of the Russian Federation in the
Human Rights Council” was proposed by Ukraine along with the U.S., E.U. and many others. The
resolution required a two-thirds majority of those present and voting for adoption. The abstentions do
not count in the tally of those ‘present and voting’. The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) voted
in favour of the resolution suspending Moscow from the UNHRC. India abstained from voting at UNGA.

11. The US President has imposed additional sanctions on Russia in the wake of the ongoing crisis
in Ukraine.(March 9, 2022)

The US termed the action of Russia on Ukraine as aggressive and as a result introduced strong additional
sanctions with new limitations on what can be exported to Russia. These sanctions will have a long term
impact on Russia and minimum impact on the US and its allies.

About the Sanctions:

 Several banks of Russia have been sanctioned along with restrictions on transactions of 13 major
state owned enterprises in Russia.
 Several Russian elites and their family members have been sanctioned including many
Belarusian individuals.
 There is a possibility that the sanctions will extend to Russia’s import of sensitive technology
concerning defence, aviation and the maritime sectors.
 This step of imposing additional sanctions on Russia has been taken by considering the
agreement of 27 European countries, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Japan and many
others according to the US.
 The EU eyed to freeze the assets linked to the Russian President and the Foreign Minister over
their invasion of Ukraine. This is considered as a unique step in history towards a nuclear power
by the international community.
Consequences:

The ongoing Ukraine crisis has brought Europe and all the advocates of freedom in a dangerous juncture
which poses threat not only to the security but also to the economic interests of the European
countries. These sanctions on Russia will result in unprecedented diplomatic and economic challenges
and isolate Russia from the global financial system and international community.

However, there are experts who believe that these drastic sanctions on Russia and ignoring Russia’s
concerns will not be a sustainable approach to resolve the ongoing crisis and can bring bitter outcomes
for Europe’s security and trade interests. World’s staple grain markets have been significantly hit by the
shockwaves of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Grain exports from Russia have been stalled for the time
being and the Ukrainian ports have been closed. This leads to the sufferings of countries that largely
depend on imports of grains from the region raising concerns of global food inflation and hunger.

Conclusion:

The US and its allies are clear in their decision to ostracize Russia from the global financial system on the
grounds of its unlawful invasion of Ukraine. This will impact the entire set up of international trade
which will not be a sustainable approach to continue with. Therefore, many experts envisage a precise
diplomatic negotiation that addresses Russia’s concerns, as an effective method to resolve the ongoing
crisis and as a better alternative to bolstering the norms of NATO.

12. The U.S., Europe and several other western nations are moving to exclude Russia from the
Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT).

What is SWIFT?

SWIFT stands for the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. SWIFT, first used in
1973, went live in 1977 with 518 institutions from 22 countries, its website states. SWIFT itself had
replaced the much slower and far less dynamic Telex. SWIFT is a messaging network used by banks and
financial institutions globally for quick and faultless exchange of information pertaining to financial
transactions.

What happens if one is excluded from SWIFT?

If a country is excluded from the most participatory financial facilitating platform, its foreign funding
would take a hit, making it entirely reliant on domestic investors. This is particularly troublesome when
institutional investors are constantly seeking new markets in newer territories. An alternative system
would be cumbersome to build and even more difficult to integrate with an already expansive system.

How is the organization governed?

SWIFT claims to be neutral. Its shareholders elect the 25-member board, which is responsible for
oversight and management of the company.
It is regulated by G-10 central banks of Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, The
Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the United States, Switzerland, and Sweden, alongside the European
Central Bank. Its lead overseer is the National Bank of Belgium. The SWIFT oversight forum was
established in 2012.

13. The United States, Canada, and the European Union (EU) are using economic sanctions against
Russia for its military action against Ukraine. Trade restriction has been one of the main
avenues for economic sanctions against Russia.

Canada has suspended the most favoured nation (MFN) treatment to Russia. The EU and the U.S. are
also contemplating similar moves.

While the Russian action against Ukraine amount to a violation of established international law, UN
Charter spirit and fundamental principles of international peace and security, the article expresses
concerns over the methods adopted by the other countries to curtail Russia’s aggression.

Limited applicability of Article XXI:

Notably, the World Trade Organization, the body which polices the international law on multilateral
trade does allow its member countries to take actions (imposing trade sanctions, suspending MFN
status) against any other member for breaching international law obligations on peace and security. This
is regulated by Article XXI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).

Article XXI empowers a member country to adopt measures “which it considers” necessary for the
protection of its essential security interests (ESI) taken in time of “war” or other “emergency in
international relations”. While article XXI can be used by Canada to justify its deviating from the MFN
rule it cannot be employed to judge whether Russia has breached international law on peace and
security. Such interpretation has been previously upheld by a 2019 WTO panel in the ‘Russia – Measures
Concerning Traffic in Transit’ case as well. In this case, the WTO panel had refused to characterise the
Russian invasion of Crimea as a violation of international law in general.

So even if it is judicially established that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a breach of international law,
that alone will not be sufficient to impose trade sanctions against Russia as per the WTO law unless
countries make a clear case under Article XXI.

Adopting methods not based on international law:

 The article criticizes the route adopted by the western powers to respond to Russia’s invasion of
Ukraine wherein they have adopted measures not rooted in international law.
 The article argues that countering Russian aggression and illegality with measures not ingrained
in international law amounts to reprisal. This could lead to wrong precedents wherein countries
overlook established rule-based international order and start taking laws into their own hands.
This will only further undermine the international order which is so very critical for international
peace, security and development.
  The article suggests that countries that want Russia to respect the rule-based order should
follow it themselves first.

14. The Russian war on Ukraine shows little signs of an immediate end.

Impact of the ongoing conflict on global interconnectedness:

While the devastation caused by the war in terms of loss of lives and property by direct missile strikes
and bombing of Ukrainian cities and the Ukrainian refugee crisis it has given rise to are clearly visible and
measurable, the article argues that the impact the Ukraine crisis is having on the world order should be
equally concerning for the global community. The Ukrainian crisis is fragmenting global
interconnectedness — in terms of international cooperation, military use, security, economic order, and
even cultural ties. In this context, the article discusses the concerns associated with the actions being
taken by both sides during the ongoing war.

Ineffectiveness of the UN and Security Council:

The unfolding events in Ukraine have exposed the ineffectiveness of the United Nations and the Security
Council in either avoiding or even being able to end the war. The unilateral actions being taken by Russia
and the humanitarian crisis it has given rise to in Ukraine run in stark contrast to the spirit of the UN
Charter preamble which calls for tolerance and global peace and security.

The article throws light on how both sides have failed to abide by accepted international principles.

Russia which has taken the pretext of security concerns as the reason for its invasion of Ukraine never
sought an international mandate on the issue before announcing the invasion. Russia with its
permanent member status of the United Nations Security Council has been able to veto all resolutions
against it in the UNSC as well as the UN General Assembly. Countries like the United States, the United
Kingdom and France too are guilty of failing to strengthen the global order as they have imposed
sanctions unilaterally rather than attempting to bring them to the UN. While Russia would have vetoed
any such sanctions, it would have been the first step to build confidence in the international order
represented by the UN. The flow of weapons to Ukraine is indicative of the UN’s ineffectiveness in
effecting a truce to the ongoing conflict. Analysing the above developments, the article describes the
Ukraine crisis as a body blow to the post-World War international order established with the UN.

Overlooking nuclear safeguards:

Russian military’s moves to target areas near Chernobyl and shell buildings near the Zaporizhzhia
nuclear power plant (Europe’s largest) show utter disregard for nuclear safeguards recommended by the
International Atomic Energy Agency. This is indicative of Russian recklessness with regard to nuclear
safety and is also a major challenge to the global nuclear order.

Use of non-state actors:

The use of non-state actors in the ongoing conflict by both sides remains a cause of concern. The use of
armed militia operating in the Donbas regions by Russia and the invitation by the Ukrainian President to
foreign fighters to support his armed forces run against the covenants agreed upon during the global
war on terrorism. The participation of “non-state actors” in a foreign war poses serious security
concerns in the longer run.

Impact of the economic actions on global financial order:

 Economic sanctions against Russia includes its eviction from SWIFT payments, cancellation of
Mastercard, Visa, American Express and Paypal payment systems within Russia, sanctioning of
specific Russian businesses and oligarchs and asking the Western businesses operating in Russia
to shut down.
 The arbitrary and unilateral nature of western sanctions run against the mandate and spirit of
the international financial order set up under the World Trade Organization.
 Economic sanctions by the U.S., the U.K. and the European Union against Russia aiming to cut
out Russia from all monetary and financial systems in all probability will lead to the
fragmentation of the global financial order. Russia will continue to explore alternative trading
arrangements and gradually, the world may see a “non-dollar” system emerge which would run
banking, fin-tech and credit systems separately from the “dollar world”. This could usher in an
era of de-globalization.

Cultural isolation:

 The sanctions like the EU’s banning of all Russian-owned, Russian-controlled or Russian-
registered planes from EU airspace, banning of Russian channels in Europe and the cancellation
of art and music performances will lead to the social and cultural isolation of Russian citizens.
This goes against the global liberal order.
 The comprehensive boycott of Russia is not in the long term interest of not only regional peace
and security but also global peace. The “Iron curtain” between Soviet Russia and Western
Europe led the world to suffer the consequences of the Cold War for decades.

Conclusion:

With this, I have tried to provide as much context as possible, both factual and conceptual, about the
agenda in hand. The delegates would be required to pick out broad areas of deliberation based on their
understanding of the mandate of the UN Security Council and put that forward in committee. The Guide
has also been compiled based on various sources of opinion-pieces, editorials and research papers to
provide you all with multiple perspectives. I sincerely hope it suits the purpose of giving you all a good
start with respect to your research and understandings of the committee.