Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Impact of the United Nations General Assembly’s Qualification of Aggression on the Law of Neutrality

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Global Impact of the Ukraine Conflict

  • 426 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter discusses whether the Russo-Ukrainian conflict has the impact to force a reconsideration of the law of neutrality. As of March 2023, no direct impact was discernible. One of the peculiarities of the current conflict is the lack of the United Nations (UN) Security Council authorization, which theoretically leaves room for the law of neutrality to come into effect. Thus, while there is a possibility that the law of neutrality could be applied, the Russia has surprisingly adopted a restrained attitude toward third states providing military assistance to Ukraine, and there is currently no use of force against these states. As there has been no opportunity to question its application and whether it has been violated, it is unclear whether the law of neutrality has any practical impact. However, this conflict is unusual in that it has been qualified as aggressive by the UN General Assembly. In this situation, whether to link actions of the Russian side against third states with the law of neutrality when responding it will be an important state practice of how the third state perceives the relationship between the law of neutrality and the UN collective security regime, including the General Assembly, and will require careful action.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    On whether assistance to Ukraine violates neutrality obligations, see, e.g., Wolff (2022). https://lieber.westpoint.edu/neutrality-in-the-war-against-ukraine/; Talmon (2022).

  2. 2.

    See, UN General Assembly Resolution ES-11/1, Aggression against Ukraine, UN Doc. A/RES/ES-11/1 (2 March 2022), available from https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3965290.

  3. 3.

    The collective security of the UN is provided for in Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Under the Charter, the Security Council has primary responsibility over international peace and security (Article 39, 41 and 42 of the Charter). However, the General Assembly has secondary authority over international peace and security, as provided for in Articles 10–12 of the Charter. In an attempt to further strengthen the functions of the General Assembly, a Uniting for Peace Resolution (resolution 377 A (V)) was adopted at the time of the Korean War, giving the General Assembly the authority to make recommendations for military action. This point will be discussed Sect. 4.1.

  4. 4.

    Fleck (2021), p. 602.

  5. 5.

    About traditional understanding about the law of neutrality, See Wani (2017).

  6. 6.

    Kurosaki (2021), p. 596.

  7. 7.

    The United States used the qualified neutrality doctrine in the World War II era, and thus applying it in response to Russia’s invasion would not depart from that past legal interpretation. In the Context of Russo-Ukraine conflict, as explained in the report of Congressional Research Service of United States, “some countries, including the United States, have adopted the doctrine of qualified neutrality. Under this doctrine, states can take non-neutral acts when supporting the victim of an unlawful war of aggression.” Congressional Research Service, “International Neutrality Law and U.S. Military Assistance to Ukraine”, (April 26, 2022), available from https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10735/3.

  8. 8.

    Brownlie (1963), p. 403.

  9. 9.

    Ibid., pp. 79, 106–07. See also Clapham (2021), p. 57.

  10. 10.

    The non-belligerent status is enshrined in Article 4 B (2) of the Geneva III Convention of 1949.

  11. 11.

    Schindler (1988), p. 213.

  12. 12.

    Gioia (1994) p. 68.

  13. 13.

    Ibid., p. 86. Under this approach, only those states that declare themselves to have Neutral Status in a particular prolonged conflict (and this would include states with a status of Permanent Neutrality such as Switzerland) will take on the duties of Neutral Status ‘in its strict sense’; See Schindler (1988), p. 213. See also Clapham (2021), pp. 57–58.

  14. 14.

    Clapham (2021), p. 71.

  15. 15.

    Fleck (2021), p. 603.

  16. 16.

    Upcher (2020), pp. 22–37.

  17. 17.

    Fleck (2021), p. 103.

  18. 18.

    Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 226, p. 261, para. 89.

  19. 19.

    Clapham (2021), p. 68.

  20. 20.

    UN Security Council Resolution 660, The Situation between Iraq and Kuwait, UN Doc. S/RES/660 (2 August 1990), available from https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/94220.

  21. 21.

    UN Security Council Resolution 661, The Situation between Iraq and Kuwait, UN Doc. S/RES/661 (6 August 1990), available from https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/94221.

  22. 22.

    In this case, there is also the question of how to determine the point in time at which neutral status can arise, but that is outside the scope of this chapter.

  23. 23.

    Clapham (2021), p. 68.

  24. 24.

    Morikawa (1997), p. 214. While in practice it is often difficult to distinguish between the side using illegal force and the side exercising its right to self-defense, the Russo-Ukrainian conflict seems to be an exception to this rule.

  25. 25.

    Schindler (1991), pp. 367, 373.

  26. 26.

    UN Security Council Resolution 598, The Situation between Iran and Iraq, UN Doc. S/RES/598 (20 July 1987), available from https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/137345?ln=en.

  27. 27.

    Bothe (1994), pp. 35, 36.

  28. 28.

    Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, para. 89.

  29. 29.

    UN General Assembly, Uniting for peace, UN Doc. A/RES/377(V)(3 November, 1950), available from https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/670279?ln=en.

  30. 30.

    Tomuschat (1950), available from https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/ufp/ufp.html.

  31. 31.

    To date, ten emergency special sessions of the General Assembly on which the resolution is based have been convened. The session are as follows; 1st session (convened in 1956; Suez Crisis), 2nd session (1956; Hungarian uprisings), 3rd session (1958; situation in Lebanon), 4th session (1960; Congo uprisings), 5th session (1967; Third Middle East War), 6th session (1980; Soviet invasion of Afghanistan), 7th session (1980, the situation in Palestine), the 8th session (1981, the situation in Namibia), the 9th session (1982, the situation in the Middle East), the 10th session (1997, the situation in Palestine), and 11th session(2022; Russo-Ukraine conflict).Until it comes to end, it can at any time be resumed upon request by Member States.

  32. 32.

    UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/RES/ES-11/6 (2 March 2023), available from https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N23/063/07/PDF/N2306307.pdf?OpenElement.

  33. 33.

    Meyrowitz (1970), pp. 347, 359.

  34. 34.

    Kolb (2018), p. 312.

  35. 35.

    Ibid.

  36. 36.

    See Talmon (2022), p. 20. However, legal effect of ‘an expression of world opinion’ was not clear.

  37. 37.

    Mayama (2023), p. 43.

  38. 38.

    See Wani (2022), p. 21.

  39. 39.

    Kolb (2018), pp. 314–315.

References

Books and Articles

  • Bothe, M. 1994. Comments. In International Economic Law and Armed Conflict. ed. H.H.G. Post, 35–36. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownlie, I. 1963. International Law and the Use of Force by States. OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clapham, A. 2021. War. OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleck, D. 2021. 18 The Law of Neutrality. In The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law, 4th edn. OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, A. 1994. Neutrality and Non-belligerency. In International Economic Law and Armed Conflict, ed. H.G.P Harry, 51–110. Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb, R. 2018. 10. Chapter VII of the Charter and Neutrality. In: International Law on the Maintenance of Peace: Jus Contra Bellum, 305–317. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurosaki, M. 2021. Churituho (The law of Neutrality). In Boei Jitsumu Kokusaiho (Law of Armed conflict and International Security: A practitioners`Manulal), ed. M. Kurosaki et al., 582–605. Kobundo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayama, A. 2023. Russia-Ukraine hunsou to Montorū Jouyaku・kaisenhouki・kaijotyuurituhouki (The Russo-Ukrainian War: The Montreax Convention and the Law of Naval Warfare and Neutrality). In Sencho (Captain), No. 140, 25–43. Japan Captain's Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyrowitz, H. 1970. Le principe de l’égalité des belligérants devant le droitde la guerre, Editions A. Pedone, Paris, 1970 (Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 April 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • Morikawa, K. 1997. Churitsu (Neutrality). In Kokusaihou-Keyword (Keyword of International law), ed. N. Okudera, and A. Kodera, 212–215. Yuhikaku.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schindler, D. 1988. Commentary to the 1907 Hague Convention XIII Concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War. In The Law of Naval Warfare: A. Collection of Agreements and Documents with Commentaries, ed. N. Ronzitti. Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schindler, D. 1991. Transformations in the Law of Neutrality Since 1945. In Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict: Challenges Ahead, ed. A.J. Delissen, and G.J. Tanja, 367–386. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Talmon, A.G. 2022. The Provision of Arms to the Victim of Armed Aggression: The Case of Ukraine. Bonn Research Papers on Public International Law 20. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4077084.

  • Tomuschat, C. 1950. Introductory Note-Uniting for Peace General Assembly resolution 377 (V). In audiovisual library of international law, available from https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/ufp/ufp.html.

  • Upcher, J. 2020. Neutrality in Contemporary International Law. OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wani, K. 2017. Neutrality in International Law: From the Sixteenth Century to 1945. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wani, K. 2022. Russia ni yoru Ukraine Gunjishinkou no Gouhosei to Kokusaishakai no Hannou (The Legality of Russia’s Military Invasion of Ukraine and the International Community’s Response) in Kokusaimondai (International Affairs). Nihon Kokusai Mondai Kenkyujo (The Japan Institute of International Affairs), 710: 15–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, H. von H. 2022. Neutrality in the War against Ukraine. Lieber Institute West Point: Articles of War (March 1, 2022). https://lieber.westpoint.edu/neutrality-in-the-war-against-ukraine/.

UN or Government Document

Jurisprudence

  • Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996, 226.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Osaka University of Economics and Law, Osaka, Japan

    Saori Matsuyama

Authors
  1. Saori Matsuyama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Waseda Law School, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan

    Shuichi Furuya

  2. Graduate School of Law, Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo, Japan

    Hitomi Takemura

  3. Faculty of Law, Chuo University, Tokyo, Japan

    Kuniko Ozaki

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Matsuyama, S. (2023). The Impact of the United Nations General Assembly’s Qualification of Aggression on the Law of Neutrality. In: Furuya, S., Takemura, H., Ozaki, K. (eds) Global Impact of the Ukraine Conflict. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-4374-6_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-4374-6_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-99-4373-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-99-4374-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation