“Struggle, lies and worldwide regulation” (concerning the 4 years for the reason that invasion of Ukraine) – Official Weblog of UNIO – Cyber Tech

Alessandra Silveira [Editor of this blog, Coordinator of Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence “Digital Citizenship and Technological Sustainability” (CitDig), University of Minho]

Within the week marking the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, a brand new ebook by Francisco Pereira Coutinho, Professor of public worldwide regulation and European constitutional regulation at NOVA College Lisbon, was launched in Portugal. I had the pleasure of presenting the work on February 26, along with Pedro Froufe, editor of this weblog. Proper originally of the ebook, entitled “Guerra, mentiras e direito internacional”[1] – which straight interprets to English as “Struggle, lies and worldwide regulation” –, the creator explains what his most important motivation was: he needed to inform the story of the invasion of Ukraine from the attitude of an professional in worldwide regulation. He then gathered the questions that his colleagues and journalists had requested him – as he’s additionally a commentator for CNN Portugal – and the result’s, for my part, a compelling and brave manifesto in defence of worldwide regulation.

Because the metaphor on the ebook cowl says, worldwide regulation doesn’t stop to exist as a result of it’s violated, simply as grammar doesn’t disappear as a result of somebody writes poorly. Nonetheless, steady violations of the principles can render them meaningless. It is because regulation (generally) is an abstraction – it solely works when these topic to the principles recognise their legitimacy and adjust to them, above all as a result of they perceive that it’s price sustaining peace, safety, order and justice. However within the (particular) area of worldwide regulation, the weaknesses of the regulation are extra evident, as a result of the recipients of the principles are sovereign states, which, if they’ve ample energy to take action, merely abandon their ethical compass and stop to adjust to the agreed guidelines – and who’s going to stand up in opposition to brute drive?

On this state of affairs, worldwide regulation loses any efficient normative drive, being subverted as an instrument serving geopolitical functions. Furthermore, worldwide regulation has been systematically invoked by Russia to (supposedly) justify and legitimise its acts of violence. That is exactly why Francisco Pereira Coutinho’s ebook is so necessary, to make sure that the “regulation of the jungle” doesn’t prevail in worldwide relations, not even (and particularly not) in occasions of warfare.

As (then) Advocate Basic Poiares Maduro recalled in his conclusions within the Kadi case earlier than the CJEU,[2] “it’s when the cannons roar that we particularly want the legal guidelines”. Furthermore, it’s the guidelines of worldwide regulation which have legitimised navy assist to Ukraine, aimed toward repelling Russia’s brutal aggression – which has now been happening for 4 years, in opposition to all expectations. That’s the reason Francisco Pereira Coutinho doesn’t mince his phrases: he argues that the warfare in Ukraine is a warfare of conquest and annexation, in flagrant violation of the United Nations Constitution. There may be an aggressor (Russia) and there’s a sufferer of aggression (Ukraine) – and this have to be acknowledged emphatically to those that search to reward the aggressor by recognising territorial annexations by drive.

However past worldwide regulation and warfare, the title of the work has a 3rd theme: lies. It is because lies have at all times been a weapon of warfare. A lot in order that Hannah Arendt, in her textual content on “fact and politics”,[3] argues in defence of factual fact, drawing on the query of culpability for the outbreak of the First World Struggle. Though the blame for World Struggle I used to be a controversial subject in 1920, nobody would have stated that Belgium invaded Germany. To erase from collective reminiscence the truth that on the evening of 4 August 1914, German troops crossed the Belgian border, it could have been essential to have a monopoly of energy over all the civilised world. Nonetheless, Hannah Arendt warned that such a monopoly of energy is way from inconceivable – and Arendt couldn’t even have predicted the disinformation on social media…

In fact, opinions might differ broadly; it’s equally true that every era can reinterpret the information – or rearrange the information in keeping with its personal perspective. However nobody has the proper to subvert the factual fact – and the factual fact is that there was an invasion of Ukraine. That’s the reason Francisco Pereira Coutinho separates “information” from “propaganda” within the warfare in Ukraine, to determine fabrications and manipulations. The creator confronts allegations with verifiable information and relevant worldwide regulation. And what methodology was adopted for this objective?

The strategy was impressed by Alan Dershowitz’s work on the Israeli Palestinian battle[4] and is principally based mostly on what follows. Every chapter opens with a query, adopted by an allegation made by one of many belligerents – nearly at all times Russia. This allegation is supported by statements from related actors within the context of the warfare. Lastly, the allegation is refuted by the actuality of the state of affairs, on the idea of sound authorized reasoning, in accordance with relevant worldwide regulation. The results of this endeavour is interesting, because the discourse is comprehensible even to these unfamiliar with regulation, had been it not for the creator’s background in instructing, which permits him to simplify what’s advanced. Subsequently, the narrative that the creator presents to us, particularly the story of the invasion of Ukraine, is woven collectively by means of questions and solutions.

Forty-six questions had been chosen, and I’ll take the freedom of figuring out a few of my favourites: Are Russians and Ukrainians one and the identical individuals? Is Crimea Russian? Can Russia’s annexation of Crimea be recognised? Why did the Minsk Agreements fail? Is NATO enlargement an existential risk to Russia? May the separatist republics of Donbas secede from Ukraine? May Russia intervene in self-defence? Was there an obligation to intervene on humanitarian grounds? Do the self-determination referendums legitimise the Russian annexations? Can Ukraine assault and occupy Russian territory? Can Ukraine be supported militarily? Can the European Union ban Russian media? Can frozen Russian property be transferred to Ukraine? Can Russia be expelled from the Safety Council? Has Russia been expelled from the Council of Europe? Can the Worldwide Felony Courtroom attempt Russian residents? Can Putin be arrested beneath the Worldwide Felony Courtroom warrant? Can Putin be tried in a particular court docket? Is Russia committing genocide? Is the Russian minority being discriminated in opposition to?

In any case, to pique the curiosity of Portuguese-speaking readers – and present some generosity to those that can not learn Portuguese – I’ll concentrate on three points that I take into account important:

1) The primary, mentioned in chapter 34 of the ebook, asks the next query: “Was there a bloodbath in Bucha?”.[5] This chapter clearly reveals the extent to which, throughout warfare, violence carries with it an extra aspect of arbitrariness – as Hannah Arendt had already stated. Furthermore, in no different state of affairs does good or unhealthy luck (Fortune, as Machiavelli put it) play such a decisive function in human affairs.[6] To reply the query, “Was there a bloodbath in Bucha?”, the creator begins with the next allegation: “The bloodbath in Bucha was nothing greater than a propaganda stunt carried out by Ukraine with the goal of derailing the peace negotiations with Russia that had been happening in Istanbul.” This declare is adopted by quite a lot of statements, amongst which I’ve chosen the one made by the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation on 3 April 2022: “The images and movies from Bucha are yet one more episode staged by the Kiev regime for the Western media, simply as occurred in Mariupol with the maternity hospital, in addition to in different cities.” Nonetheless, the actuality is as follows: “The Russian military tortured and summarily executed dozens of individuals in Bucha in March 2022.” The reasoning is prolonged, however I’ll reproduce just a few excerpts: “The Russian military reached the gates of Kyiv. Between 5 and 30 March 2022, it occupied Bucha, a suburb situated 5 kilometres from the Ukrainian capital. Round 5,000 civilians remained within the besieged metropolis. Upon getting into liberated Bucha on 2 April 2022, the worldwide press reported the existence of dozens of decomposing corpses within the open air. Most of the our bodies confirmed indicators of taking pictures and torture. Within the following months, Ukrainian authorities recovered a complete of 422 our bodies, most of them exhumed from mass graves and makeshift graves. The Impartial Worldwide Fee of Inquiry on Ukraine has documented intimately dozens of abstract executions in Bucha. (…) The bloodbath in Bucha was not an remoted case. It’s a part of a sample of systematic violence that characterises Russian navy conduct, marked by abstract executions, torture, pressured labour, arbitrary detentions, pressured displacement and indiscriminate and disproportionate assaults on civilians and civilian property, which brought about, between 24 February 2022 and the start of June 2025, at the least 13,580 civilian deaths – together with 716 kids – and 34,115 civilian accidents, together with 2,173 kids. (…) The European Courtroom of Human Rights, which examined solely violations that occurred as much as 16 September 2022, highlighted particularly the Russian assaults on maternity hospital no. 3 and on tons of of civilians sheltering in a clearly marked theatre in Mariupol in March 2022, in addition to on a crowd of civilians being evacuated on the Kramatorsk railway station in April 2022. In 2024, the Worldwide Felony Courtroom issued arrest warrants for 4 senior Russian navy officers (…) for warfare crimes and crimes in opposition to humanity, for allegedly ordering deliberate assaults on civilians and civilian property in Ukraine, together with crucial vitality infrastructure.”

2) The second difficulty that I take into account important is the one addressed in chapter 42, which raises the next query: “Can Ukraine be a part of NATO and the European Union?”. This query is especially related to readers of this weblog, as a result of it presents a future perspective for Ukraine throughout the context of an built-in Europe. To reply the query, “Can Ukraine be a part of NATO and the European Union?”, the creator begins with the next allegation: “Ukraine can not be a part of NATO or the European Union whereas it’s concerned in a territorial battle with Russia.” This assertion is adopted by quite a lot of statements, from which I’ve chosen the next by Viktor Orbán on 25 June 2025: “If the European Union accepts Ukraine as a member, this may end in open warfare at this time limit and, after a ceasefire, will entail a seamless danger of warfare between Europe and Russia.” Nonetheless, the actuality is as follows: “The Russian occupation doesn’t in itself represent an impediment to Ukraine’s accession to NATO and the European Union. Germany joined NATO regardless of a part of its territory being occupied by the Soviet Union. Cyprus is a part of the European Union regardless of a part of its territory being occupied by Turkey.” The reasoning is as soon as once more prolonged, so I’ll reproduce solely an excerpt: “The truth that Ukraine has a territorial dispute with Russia, which is illegally occupying a number of Ukrainian areas, doesn’t in itself represent a authorized impediment to Ukraine’s accession to NATO or the European Union. The internationalisation of the battle may be prevented if the mutual defence clauses supplied for in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty and Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union are expressly restricted to the territory beneath the efficient management of the Ukrainian state, just like the options adopted, in several contexts for Germany and Cyprus. This risk, nonetheless, requires the stabilisation of the battlefront, which may solely be achieved – as was the case in Cyprus and Germany – by means of a ceasefire (de facto or de jure) or, ideally, by means of the conclusion of an armistice settlement.”

3) Lastly, the third difficulty that I take into account essential is the one raised in chapter 46, which asks the next query: “Will Russia commerce peace for territory?”. This chapter is noteworthy as a result of the creator envisages peace, however explains to what extent the popularity of the “new territorial realities” – that’s, Russia’s annexation of the Ukrainian areas of Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia – wouldn’t be ample for a long-lasting cessation of hostilities, as for Putin this doesn’t eradicate the “root causes of the battle”, condensed into the triad of “neutralisation, demilitarisation and denazification” of Ukraine. To reply the query, “Will Russia commerce peace for territory?”, the creator begins with the next allegation: “There might be peace when Ukraine recognises Russian sovereignty over the «new territorial realities».” This allegation is adopted by a number of statements, amongst which I’ve chosen one made by Vladimir Putin on 14 June 2024: “As quickly as they declare in Kiev that they don’t seem to be able to (recognise the brand new territorial realities) and start an efficient withdrawal of troops (from the occupied areas), and likewise formally declare that they’re abandoning their intention to affix NATO, we are going to instantly give the order to stop fireplace and begin negotiations – instantly, at once.” Nonetheless, the actuality is as follows: “Exchanging peace for territory rewards the aggressor and doesn’t resolve the «root causes of the battle», that are identity-based. It merely postpones the answer to the issue.” The reasoning for this place can be intensive, of which I’ll share an excerpt: “On the opposite aspect of the Atlantic, the Trump administration is contemplating recognising Crimea in alternate for persuading Putin to conform to a ceasefire in Ukraine. This technique of exchanging peace for territory won’t work, because it solely satisfies Moscow’s secondary territorial curiosity, and never its strategic id aim of retaining Ukraine inside its sphere of affect. (…) The Kremlin calls for, above all, that the «root causes of the battle» be resolved. And what’s the most important reason for the battle? The choice of the Ukrainian individuals to affiliate themselves with the European Union and to ascertain themselves as a democratic state ruled by the rule of regulation.”

Within the 4 years for the reason that invasion of Ukraine, it is very important keep in mind that with out values, every part is equally legitimate – as Albert Camus put it. If we imagine in nothing, if nothing has that means, if we can not affirm any values, then every part is permitted and nothing issues. Subsequently, there’s neither good nor evil – and Hitler was neither incorrect nor proper. If we expect that nothing has that means, we should conclude that whoever wins is true. As a result of if nothing is both true or false, if nothing is both good or unhealthy, then brute drive prevails, the place there’s solely room for masters and slaves. To this extent, the liberty we’re challenged to realize lately is that of not mendacity – for less than then will we have the ability to determine the explanations for dwelling and dying.[7] 

[1] Francisco Pereira Coutinho, Guerra, mentiras e direito internacional (Lisboa: Zigurate, 2026).

[2] Opinion of Mr Advocate Basic Poiares Maduro delivered on 16 January 2008, Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat Worldwide Basis v Council of the European Union and Fee of the European Communities, joined circumstances C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P, ECLI:EU:C:2008:11.

[3] Hannah Arendt, Entre o passado e o futuro, 9^th version (São Paulo: Perspectiva, 2022).

[4] Alan Dershowitz, The case for Israel (Wiley, 2003).

[5] All quoted excerpts of this ebook have been freely translated by the Writer of this publish.

[6] Hannah Arendt, Sobre a violência (Lisboa: Relógio d’água, 2014).

[7] Albert Camus, Conferências e discursos (1937-1958) (Porto: Livros do Brasil, 2022).

Image credit score: by Bruno Reynaud de Sousa.