Aggressor country: definition. Aggressor country in international law

2024 Author: Henry Conors | [email protected]. Last modified: 2024-02-12 02:46

The concept of "aggressor country" appeared in the international legal field after the end of World War II. When it became obvious that the war was nearing its end, representatives of the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition got involved in the creation of an association and legal support in order to prevent the emergence of such an aggressor anywhere in the world. However, despite conventions and international law, armed clashes continue around the world, including with the participation of major powers such as the United States.

Security basics

The Second World War ended in September with the surrender of Japan, and already on October 24, 1945, at a conference in San Francisco, the Charter of the United Nations was approved, which was signed by representatives of fifty states. The document, in particular, spelled out the powers of the Security Council. When a threat is detected, the Security Council makes recommendations or independently makes decisions on its elimination and restorationsecurity. It was in the statutory documents of the UN that a full-fledged definition of the term "aggressor country" first appeared: what it is, what are its main features.

Main Charter

In the document, when defining aggression, the main emphasis is placed on an armed encroachment on sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence. At the same time, the reaction of the UN does not depend on whether the attacked state is a member of the organization or not. The Charter also details the actions of states that can be regarded as aggressive. Acts of aggression include any forceful invasions, attacks, as well as the consequences of these actions in the form of occupation or annexation. In addition, the list of such acts includes the use of any weapon, the blockade with the help of weapons, as well as the sending of mercenary detachments into the territory, the presence of which can be regarded as acts of aggression.

Legal Grounds

The UN Charter also states that aggression can in no way be justified. In particular, it is pointed out that political, economic, military and other considerations cannot justify the aggressive actions of one country towards another. Since such behavior is regarded as criminal, the aggressor country is regarded as a criminal in international law. Accordingly, the commission of such a crime entails liability. It also clarifies that any acquisitions obtained as a result of aggression cannot be recognized by the international community and receive legal status.

Peace Block

According to many worldpolitical scientists, decisions on the organization of the international world order were made with the participation of America. This can hardly be an absolute statement, but the fact that the UN Charter was drafted and adopted in one of the American cities makes us look at this issue more carefully. For military opposition to any aggression in 1949, the Military-Political Bloc of the North Atlantic Alliance, better known as NATO, was created. The block includes 28 states: more European countries, the USA and Canada. The headquarters is in Brussels (Belgium). As of 2010, the combined army numbered about 3.8 million people.

The alliance, which was created mainly to fight the USSR and repel its attacks, after the disappearance of the Soviet Union switched to a new enemy, whose name is terrorism. It was under the auspices of the fight against terrorism that NATO countries fought in Afghanistan, Yugoslavia and Libya. The overthrow of the regimes in these states at the suggestion of Washington was presented as the liberation of the people living there from the tyranny of militants and the building up of democratic values in these territories, which could only be achieved by bloody means.

Meanwhile, no matter what slogans were sung in the world community, the majority understood that NATO was acting in the interests of a superpower, namely the United States. However, having one of the most powerful armies, the "stars and stripes" themselves successfully coped with "forcing" democracy in different parts of the world.

USA as the main global aggressor

The term "aggressor country" isunderstanding, which was originally embedded in the UN postulates, is clearly discredited. And although, from a legal point of view, full ceremonial may have been performed so that America would appear as a strong pillar of the world order, rushing to the rescue at the slightest violation of human rights, nevertheless, at the end of the last century, the formula was firmly established: "The United States is an aggressor country".

Today, in many opinion polls, the majority of respondents call Americans the undisputed leaders in terms of the level of international aggression. Sociologists blame the media for this, which place an increased emphasis on the US "crusades" in the Balkans, the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa. At the same time, about five or six countries that can really destroy the world are states that have nuclear weapons in their arsenal.

Necessary counterweight

Political scientists, seeing the results of opinion polls, tend to look at this situation a little differently. In their opinion, it is easy to imagine what will happen to the world if there is no such leadership - obvious and unconditional. In this case, in the absence of a clear hegemony of the superpower, local conflicts and the struggle for leadership intensify a hundredfold.

This leads to greater instability in the world, the result of which one way or another is a major unifying conflict and a new redistribution of the world order. In this sense, in the system of checks and balances in which the world lives, the leadership of one state guarantees the security of most of the world's population.

Crimea andUkrainian crisis

At the end of 2013, a severe political crisis began to unfold in Ukraine. The protesters took to the Maidan, demanding the resignation of the current government. An unexpected consequence of these events was the annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol to the Russian Federation in March 2014. In February, Russian-speaking residents of Crimea took to the streets to protest against Euromaidan supporters who came to power in Kyiv as a result of a coup. The government that has changed in the republic declared the new leadership of Ukraine illegitimate and asked for help from Russia. At the same time, for the first time, an accusation was made, thrown from the side of the entire Western Hemisphere, that Russia was an aggressor country. The Kremlin was accused of annexing Crimea, implying the forcible incorporation of the territory into Russia, which, according to international law, entails responsibility.

In order to comply with international requirements, a referendum was held in Crimea, which is officially designated as illegitimate in most of the EU countries and the United States. Ukraine also does not recognize the actions of the Russian leadership and since April 2014 has been positioning Crimea as an occupied territory. In addition, the UN General Assembly at the end of March adopted a resolution according to which the referendum in Crimea is considered illegal. An absolute majority voted for the document.

At the end of January this year, the Ukrainian leadership officially recognized Russia as an aggressor country in relation to its southeastern territories.

Sanctions as manipulation

Russia's actions have becomereason for organizing international isolation. The initiator was the United States, which pushed its position through the threat of potential economic damage, as a result, the European Union also imposed economic and political sanctions. They were joined by G7 partners and others. The sanctions included several visits. The first package determined the freezing of assets and the restriction of entry to those personalities whom the West considers close to President Vladimir Putin. Among these were, in particular, businessmen brothers Arkady and Boris Rotenberg. Foreign companies in different countries have begun to gradually curtail cooperation with Russia in many areas of activity. The status of “Russia is an aggressor country” frightened many, and no one was ready to lose a partner in the face of Washington.

Russian interpretation of aggression

In the realities of sanctions and counter-sanctions, the term “aggressor country” has acquired a completely new meaning. The bill, introducing new realities into the legal field of Russia, was proposed by deputies from United Russia Anton Romanov and Evgeny Fedorov. The latter is also the coordinator of the National Liberation Movement organization together with Sergei Katasonov, a member of the LDPR faction. The document was submitted to the government for consideration in December 2014. In an explanation to the bill, its authors argued the need for such a law by the aggressive and non-partner behavior of states that impose sanctions against Russia and its citizens, as well as legal entities.

It was assumed that the Russianthe government will be empowered to designate a register of states to which the term may apply in order to protect the foundations of the constitutional order. The need for the bill was also determined by ensuring national security, development of the national economy and its protection. Among the main goals pursued by the law is leveling the presence of foreign companies in the Russian consulting business.

In particular, firms providing consulting services in the field of audit, law and other things, whose homeland is the aggressor country, will be prohibited from operating in Russia. In addition, the ban was to also apply to Russian companies affiliated with foreign companies. According to the authors of the bill, the market for consulting services is a monopoly of foreign firms. According to them, 70% of the market, whose turnover in 2013 exceeded 90 billion rubles, belongs to such large players as the British Ernst & Young or the American Deloitte. The drafters of the bill note that in the current international situation, this could cause serious damage to economic security, since the majority of Russian strategic enterprises are audited by foreign companies.

Government disapproves

Despite the seemingly urgency of introducing such a political status as an aggressor country, the Russian government did not support the initiative of the deputies. As follows from the conclusion signed by Sergei Prikhodko, head of the staffgovernments, the status of "aggressor country", the definition given to it by the authors of the project, contradict the content invested in the term "aggression" by the UN General Assembly. In addition, the explanation notes that the provisions of the new draft law do not take into account the specifics of the division of powers between the head and the parliament of the state in the field of protecting Russian sovereignty. In addition, the novelties of the proposed bill are contrary to the provisions of the procurement law.

Political scientists and deputies were skeptical about the possibility of adopting such a law: “aggressor country” is a term, the introduction of which could lead to an even greater escalation of the conflict.