Territorial integrity is sacrosanct

After months of sabre-rattling, Russia commenced a full-scale invasion of Ukraine this week, plunging Eastern Europe into an unprecedented crisis. There may be many reasons for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. 

The imperatives of geopolitics, expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) eastwards since the end of the Cold War and resulting Russian insecurities, nostalgia for the greater Soviet sphere of influence, internal demographics of Ukraine, etc., are all good dinner table conversation points for the Russian action, yet none of these imperatives is backed by international law nor do they justify an outright invasion of a sovereign, independent state. 

The sovereignty and territorial integrity of a nation are cornerstones of the current world order established after the second world war and prohibit states from the use of force against the “territorial integrity or political independence” of another state. It is enshrined in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and has been recognised as customary international law. Conversely, this principle ensures that imposition by force of a border change is an act of aggression. The days of aggression and territorial expansion using military force were supposed to be a thing of the past after witnessing their devastating impact in two world wars.

There are very limited circumstances in which this principle may be curtailed. If there is an authorisation by the United Nations Security Council for intervention there could be an international or bilateral action. In the first Gulf War in 1991 the United States-led coalition obtained such a sanction from the UNSC in the liberation of Kuwait from Iraqi forces. The attacks on Iraq during that conflict were therefore within the scope of international law. This was not the case in 2003 with the US-led invasion into Iraq. Whatever the justifications and pretexts, the US failed to obtain a UNSC sanction for the war which made it illegal in the eyes of international law. What was wrong for the US in 2003 is most definitely wrong for Russia in 2022.

Another exemption for the principle of sovereignty and territorial integrity lies within the concept of ‘humanitarian intervention’ which is yet to be codified in international law, other than in the purview of the UNSC. Thus, the Indian pretext of dropping humanitarian assistance in Operation Poomalai in June 1987 would forever be remembered in Sri Lanka as an act of aggression rather than some humanitarian intervention. This principle however has no relevance to the events unfolding currently in Ukraine. There is no impending humanitarian crisis in Ukraine that warranted a Russian invasion.

In this context international law, standards and norms are clear. Russia is an aggressor that has invaded a sovereign, independent state without provocation. Sri Lanka, for long years during our own bloody separatists’ conflict, demanded from the rest of the world to recognise our country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Even countries that found sympathy with the Tamil cause made it a specific point to acknowledge these principles. International borders once established through a legal process cannot be arbitrarily changed through acts of aggression. 

Having faced an internal challenge to our own territorial integrity and as a nation living in the shadow of a giant neighbour that had previously intervened militarily in our domestic affairs, Sri Lanka has no choice but to stand for the respect of these principles. 

Sri Lanka’s own economic woes, its vulnerability in the international arena due to its poor human rights record and its dependency on certain countries as economic and political crutches, may prevent it from making a principled stand on Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. However, it is imperative that the Sri Lankan Government does not back the aggressor state in this dispute for short-term advantages.