Original article (in Montenegrin) was published on 12/10/2022
Ever since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, we have been hearing about the reasons used to justify Russia’s aggression against the neighbouring country. Quite frequently, (pro)Russian propagandists create a narrative themselves, for which they receive torrents of praise because they supposedly “unmasked” some big conspiracy or found a loophole in international law.
One such announcement appeared on the channel of a man known for spreading misinformation and fake news. His interpretation of the war in Ukraine is multi-layered:
For the legally illiterate ones: according to Article 106 of the UN Charter, Russia has the right to intervene without declaring war in ALL COUNTRIES THAT WERE ON THE SIDE OF NAZISM IN THE PERIOD BETWEEN 1939 AND 1945. Furthermore, the territory of the former Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine remains WITHOUT INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION OF ITS BORDERS IN THE UN, and the existence of its statehood was finally lost with Russia’s withdrawal of its recognition the day before the special military operation. EVERYTHING RUSSIA IS DOING THESE DAYS IS IN FULL ACCORDANCE WITH THE NORMS OF INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC LAW.
This post quickly spread on social networks.
Article 107
Article 106 of the UN Charter does not STATE what the author is talking about. He refers to Article 107, which states:
“Nothing in the present Charter shall invalidate or preclude action, in relation to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory to the present Charter, taken or authorized as a result of that war by the Governments having responsibility for such action.”
Even the vaguely interpreted Article 107 in the disputed post does not justify Russian aggression. During the Second World War, Ukraine was not an enemy of any of the signatories of the Charter but was a member of the USSR together with Russia. At the same time, it is one of the 50 countries that are considered the founders of the UN
The analysis of Article 107 leads to the conclusion that Russia certainly cannot take action, as there is no consequence stemming from the Second World War.
The so-called “Enemy State Clause” (contained in Articles 53 and 107) has certainly become anachronistic and unnecessary, as legal experts say. Although Japan launched an initiative to have it excluded from the Charter, this did not happen due to, as stated – the complex way of making decisions. The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs then explained that the clause in which they were described as “enemies” made them ostracized. They received support from Italy and Romania, to which it also refers, and which, together with Japan, were on the side of the defeated ones in the Second World War.
Borders of Ukraine
In a referendum held in late 1991, 90 per cent of the citizens of Ukraine voted to withdraw from the USSR, which was in the process of disintegration. The state borders were determined according to the uti possidetis juris principle, which provides that newly-formed sovereign states should retain the internal borders that their preceding dependent area had before the dissolution of the previous state. In other words, the borders retain the shape they had in the previous union.
Russia and Ukraine signed the Border Agreement in 2003, which was registered with the UN in 2016.
We have already written about the borders of Ukraine.
Also, the UN does not recognize states and governments, nor their borders, but only admits to membership, which is clearly stated on the website of the UN.
Non-aggression pacts
The independence of Ukraine was among the first to be congratulated by the then President of Russia, Boris Yeltsin, the day after the Ukrainian referendum. Russia, Belarus and Ukraine then signed the Treaty on the Commonwealth of Independent States.
Article 5 of that Agreement states:
“High contracting parties are recognized and respect territorial integrity of each other and immunity of the existing borders within the Commonwealth”.
In 1994, the Budapest Memorandum was signed between the Russian Federation, the USA, the United Kingdom and Ukraine. Article 2 of that document states that the signatories undertake to:
“refrain from the threat of using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine”.
In 1997, the Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership between Russia and Ukraine was signed. Article 2 of that document reads as follows
“… The High Contracting Parties acknowledge and respect each other’s territorial integrity and the inviolability of their common borders.”
Russia is not waging war according to UN rules
Vladimir Putin referred to Article 51 of the UN Charter, which, among other things, states:
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations…”
What he is trying to say is that Russia is at war in self-defence. However, as it is written in Article 51, Russia has no right to do that because it did not suffer an “armed attack” by Ukraine.
On the other hand, Russia violates Article 2 of the UN Charter, which states:
“… All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
From what we have had the opportunity to see so far, as well as from this analysis, it is clear that “everything that Russia is doing today” is by no means in accordance with the norms of international law, as it wants to be presented in the disputed post.
To make matters worse, in a short period of time, this post has collected about fifteen hundred likes, and it has been shared more than 70 times.
Due to all the above information, this post receives the “fake news” grade.
The “Fake news” grade is given to an original media report (completely produced by the media that published it) that contains factually incorrect claims or information. Content rated as fake news can be reliably determined to have been created and disseminated with the intent to misinform the public, that is, to present a false claim as a fact.
