Zagrebačka pravna revija, Vol. 4 No. 1, 2015.
Pregledni rad
Just war – reference to an old doctrine in contemporary times and the case of the Russian intervention in Ukraine in 2014
Đipalo Sabina
Sažetak
The concept of a just war developed as an effort to restrict wars by rules of conduct during a state of war, and to limit the causes of starting war in the first place. The main elements of the concept of a just war were set and elaborated by St. Thomas Aquinas. In his understanding, war could only be justified if three criteria were met: a) war is declared by a sovereign authority (auctoritas principis); b) the war has a just cause (iusta causa); c) and there is also a righteous intention (recta intentio) of those waging the war, which is the promotion of good and avoidance of evil. In the 20th century, an absolute prohibition of war was introduced by the UN Charter. However, some space was left for the legitimate use of force in two cases – in the case of self-defence and in the case of a collective action of the United Nations when there is a threat to peace, disruption of peace, or an act of aggression. However, self-defence has proved to be an incredibly elastic term (ranging from interceptive, the controversial aspect of anticipatory, to the most controversial of all, pre-emptive self-defence). There have also been attempts to subsume actions, under collective actions, that do not belong there. In addition to the dubious forms of self-defence, in the last 70 years countries have also used force in various other situations that could not be subsumed under self-defence, and which, by repeating themselves in several patterns, have led to the identification of several forms of use of force – different unilateral interventions. The interventions of one or several states by using force in the territory of another state for different reasons and justifications are the most frequent form of the modern use of force which stretches the rules (prohibitions) of international law on the use of force. The following main reasons have been given in practice: pro-democratic intervention, intervention to protect one's own citizens, and humanitarian intervention. By explaining them, countries again, just as at the time prior to any legal regulation of wars, justify their use of force by the just cause that they aim to achieve, they prove their righteous intentions, they persuade the international community that they have no other choice, and thus they opt for their only remaining choice. In brief, contemporary states wage just wars.
The beginning of 2014 was very intensive in Ukraine, and although the subject-matter of this paper ends with the end of the first six months, those events continued after this period. The protests of citizens, who were favouring the pro-European options against the pro-Russian ones, led to a change in leadership. Dissatisfied with how the events had been evolving, Russia supported the efforts of the Crimean Russian population for independence (and subsequent annexation to Russia). To begin with, Russia persistently denied the presence of its military forces in the territory of Crimea, but eventually admitted this. If we keep in mind the definition of aggression stated in the UN General Assembly Resolution and the detailed description of the facts in place, no other conclusion may be drawn but that Russia committed aggression against Ukraine. Russia's justification for its own actions contained the elements that make up the concept of a just war: defending the innocent (just cause), as well as the main intention which guided Russia's decision (righteous intention). Therefore, Russia conducted its “just war” against Ukraine in 2014, justifying it as an intervention requested by the legitimate government of Ukraine (deposed President Yanukovych).
Ključne riječi
just war; Russia; Ukraine; Crimea; 2014
Hrčak ID:
159391
URI
Datum izdavanja:
16.7.2015.
Posjeta: 2.824 *