Articles for category: Ukraine

Wartime Elections as Democratic Backsliding

The topic of the next elections to the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) of Ukraine unexpectedly surfaced in public discourse towards the end of spring this year. Julia Kyrychenko and Olha Ivasiuk’s recent article on Verfassungsblog outlines major legal and practical obstacles to holding wartime elections in Ukraine. In their illuminating analysis, the authors make a strong case against wartime elections, a viewpoint largely shared by civil society. My argument is a bit different. I will argue that (1) wartime parliamentary elections are expressis verbis inconsistent with the Ukrainian Constitution, and (2) wartime elections would undermine the legitimacy of democratic institutions and potentially lead to democratic backsliding.

No Voting Under Fire

Can Ukraine hold elections while it is in the midst of a full-scale invasion by Russia? This question has recently received international attention, including comments from US Senator Lindsey Graham advocating for elections during the war. However, holding elections during the current state of war faces not only factual but also legal obstacles. Genuine democratic elections cannot be conducted under fire from Russian troops.

Cluster Munition and International Law

In recent weeks, there has been intense discussion about the delivery of cluster munitions by the United States of America to Ukraine and the subsequent use of these munitions. The use of such ammunition can be an effective military tool, which is why Ukraine has specifically sought the supply of such ammunition from its allies in order to make its defence against Russia’s war of aggression more effective. This blog post sheds light on the international law dimension of the discussion and illustrates the consequences of the delivery of cluster munitions for allied states of Ukraine, which are parties to the Oslo Convention on Cluster Munitions.

Streumunition und Völkerrecht

In den zurückliegenden Wochen ist intensiv über die Lieferung von Streumunition durch die Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika an die Ukraine und den nachfolgenden Einsatz dieser Munition diskutiert worden. Der Einsatz solcher Munition kann ein wirksames militärisches Mittel darstellen, weswegen die Ukraine gezielt bei ihren Verbündeten nach der Lieferung solcher Munition nachgesucht hat, um ihre Verteidigung gegen den völkerrechtswidrigen russischen Angriffskrieg effektiver zu gestalten. Es kann aber nach den für eine Abwägung zwischen militärischer Notwendigkeit und Schutzstandards offenen Regeln des humanitären Völkerrechts Situationen geben, in denen Streumunition völkerrechtskonform von Staaten eingesetzt werden darf, die nicht Vertragsparteien des Osloer Abkommens sind. Dies wird insbesondere dann der Fall sein, wenn der Einsatz der Streumunition in einem Kontext erfolgt, bei dem zivile Opfer praktisch ausgeschlossen werden können.

World War 2 Memories in Lithuania and Ukraine

On May 8, 2023, Lithuania and Ukraine, along with other European countries, meet the annual anniversaries of the end of World War 2 in Europe in 1945. Meanwhile, Russia holds a national holiday tomorrow on May 9 to commemorate the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany, which is the most important holiday in Russia and became a cult practice for uniting Russians after 2000. The anniversary finds Ukraine in the midst of fighting off present-day Russian aggression. Lithuania finds itself worrying about its defense, dealing with memory incidents and among the biggest supporters of Ukraine. Russia, however, finds itself more isolated than ever and scaling back the celebration: According to Moscow because of expected ‘drone strikes’, but more likely due to ‘fear of popular protests.’ This blog entry takes stock of legal measures by two nations to countervail Russia’s decades-long mnemo-political aggressiveness.

Investing Immobilized Russian Assets, Monetarizing the Common Foreign and Security Policy

Again, the Commission and EU Member States are talking about new sanctions against Russia. The focus, according to Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, should be on tackling sanctions circumvention and loopholes. In a scoop, however, it was also uncovered that the Commission has drawn up a non-paper “on the generation of resources to support Ukraine from immobilized Russian assets”. The idea behind this non-paper is to invest the immobilized assets of the Russian Central Bank in EU Member States’ bonds and bills and use the proceeds to support the reconstruction of Ukraine. The plan, as the non-paper indicates, is fraught with a number of legal and technical issues. These do not only relate to the question of whether or not such an investment of immobilized assets is compatible with international law and EU law, but also to the question of who should undertake and oversee these investments.

On the Side of International Law

This Wednesday, the United Nations General Assembly resumed its Emergency Special Session on Ukraine, amidst a turbulent week that witnessed US President Biden’s surprise trip to Kyiv, Russian withdrawal from the New START Treaty, and Chinese top diplomat Wang Yi’s visit to Moscow, amongst other things. On Thursday, the Assembly adopted resolution ES-11/6 (draft here) with 141 votes in favor, seven against, 32 abstentions and 13 countries not voting. If the Russian aggression last year was a watershed moment for the United Nations, then the organ to watch these days is the General Assembly, and not the Security Council.

What can(’t) international criminal justice deliver for Ukraine?

One year ago, Russia began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, committing an act of aggression in violation of the UN Charter. Many more incidents of international crimes followed, adding to an already large number of unaddressed crimes going back to 2014. While investigations are underway, the failures to pursue accountability for international crimes committed by Russia in the past still need to be addressed in this context.

Was nutzen Panzer ohne Ziele?

Die Bundesrepublik wird Leopard-2-Kampfpanzer an Kiew liefern, ukrainische Soldaten in Deutschland trainieren sowie Exportgenehmigungen an Partnerländer ausstellen. Während die russische Führung über die angeblich erneute Bedrohung durch deutsche Panzer fabuliert, sind deutsche Entscheidungsträger*innen in erster Linie mit sich selbst zufrieden. In Deutschland nicht diskutiert, jedoch zentral für alle politischen Entscheidungen in diesem Konflikt ist die Frage: Unterstützung wofür?

Enteignen für den Wiederaufbau?

Jeden Tag bringt der Krieg in der Ukraine unerträgliches und unvorstellbares menschliches Leid mit sich. Vor diesem Hintergrund fällt es schwer, schon heute einen nüchternen Blick auf die Zeit nach Beendigung der Kampfhandlungen in der Ukraine und einer Zurückdrängung des russischen Aggressors zu werfen. Das allerdings scheint notwendig, um moralisierender Politik notwendige rechtsstaatliche Rationalität entgegenzusetzen. Konkret geht es dabei um die Frage, ob es möglich ist, staatliches und/oder privates russisches Vermögen entschädigungslos zu enteignen, um so den Wiederaufbau der Ukraine zu finanzieren. Diese Überlegung liegt insbesondere der Erkenntnis zugrunde, dass die durch die russische Aggression verursachten Schäden in der Ukraine schon jetzt auf über eine Billion US-Dollar geschätzt werden.