Russian President Vladimir Putin has long declared that Ukraine is not an independent country.
He said in 2008 that the country “is not even a state.” In a speech this year, he elaborated, arguing that “modern Ukraine was entirely and fully created by Russia.” Days later, he ordered Russian forces to invade Ukraine to erase it from the map.
In her article, “The Return of Conquest: Why the Future of Global Order Hinges on Ukraine”, writer Tanisha Fazal addresses contemporary international norms. “Compliance with the norms of state sovereignty—including the notion that a country gets to control what happens in its own territory—has never been perfect. But states have generally tried to observe the sanctity of borders or at least maintain the appearance of doing so. Countries could rest assured that of all the threats they faced, an invasion to redraw their borders was unlikely to be one of them. With a main cause of war largely consigned to history, this brand of conflict became less common.”
Russia’s war may mean a scarier future. The norm against territorial conquest has been tested in the most threatening and vivid way since the end of World War II. The war in Ukraine is reminiscent of a previous, more violent era. If the global community allows Russia to subsume Ukraine, states may more frequently use force to challenge borders, and wars may break out, former empires may be reinstated, and more countries may be brought to the edge of extinction.
What is to be done? The international community must challenge Russia’s aggression by giving meaning to the idea of international community. The global community is already using sanctions and must use international courts to impose costs on Russia for its illegal aggression. It can press for reforms at the United Nations so that Security Council members, Russia included, cannot veto a referral to the International Criminal Court and thus hamstring that institution’s ability to pursue justice.
Fazal writes about the change in the behavior of states after World War II: “why the sudden drop-off in territorial conquest after World War II? The answer can be found in a powerful force in international relations: norms. As the political scientists Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink have defined the term, a norm is ‘a standard of appropriate behavior for actors with a given identity’—in this case, states. The leaders who developed the norm against territorial conquest recognized that most conflicts, including World War II, were fought over land.” Although war has still happened on a lesser scale, establishing a norm prohibiting one state from taking another state’s territory created an ethos of peace,
The good news is that the outrage over Putin’s attack has been swift and broad. The response to the invasion means much of the Western world is united in enforcing the norm. If the resolve to enforce this norm were to ebb, then the norm against force would erode and Poland and other Eastern European countries would have to worry about their sovereignty.
As Fazal points out, the world must keep the pressure on Russia if international norms are to be kept. We must, however, be cautious, as protecting Ukrainian sovereignty would not be worth another world war, especially one that could go nuclear.
