Global Impact of the Ukraine Conflict: Perspectives from International Law

Preface
Contents
Editors and Contributors
Part I Use of Force and Its Legal Implications
1 Challenge from Russia Against Jus Contra Bellum Under Contemporary International Law and Legal Responses to Be Taken by the International Community
	1.1 Russian Invasion of Ukraine as an Objection to International Order Based on Contemporary International Law
	1.2 Superficial Nature of the Legal Justification for the Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine in Light of Contemporary International Law
	1.3 Peculiarity of Russian Claims: A Return to the Theory of Fundamental Rights of States in the Nineteenth-Century Style
	1.4 Legal Responses to the Challenge Posed by the Russia’s Invasion of the Contemporary International Legal Order
	References
2 Impacts on Jus Cogens: Impact on the Law of State Responsibility and Law of Treaties
	2.1 Introduction
	2.2 Legitimisation of Special Military Operation
		2.2.1 Brief History of Events
		2.2.2 Russia’s Logic
	2.3 Capacity to Conclude a Treaty
		2.3.1 Statehood
		2.3.2 Self-Determination
	2.4 Consequences of Violations of Peremptory Norms (Jus Cogens)
		2.4.1 Acquisition of Territory Through a Treaty
		2.4.2 Obligations of the Third Parties
	2.5 Concluding Remarks
	References
3 The Uniting for Peace Resolution Used in the Ukraine Case: Could It Open a New Window of the General Assembly?
	3.1 Introduction
	3.2 Background
		3.2.1 Drafting History
		3.2.2 The Uniting for Peace Resolution Examined
	3.3 Study of the Emergency Special Sessions
		3.3.1 Before the Ukraine Case
		3.3.2 Ukraine Case
	3.4 Conclusion
	References
4 Locating the Veto Power in the International Legal Order: When a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council Becomes an Aggressor
	4.1 Introduction
	4.2 Rationale for the Veto Power
	4.3 Initiatives to Reinterpret or Reform the Veto Power
	4.4 The Veto Power Degraded?
	4.5 Conclusion
	References
5 Sanctions on Russia: What Impact Do They Have on the Question of “Third-Party Countermeasures”?
	5.1 Introduction
	5.2 The Question of “Third-Party Countermeasures”
		5.2.1 Discussion on the Proposal of the Drafting Committee in the UN International Law Commission (2000)
		5.2.2 Crawford’s Fourth Report and the Final Articles in the UN International Law Commission (2001)
		5.2.3 Recent Discussion
	5.3 The Sanctions Against Russia
		5.3.1 Before February 2022
		5.3.2 After February 2022
	5.4 Impact on the Question of “Third-Party Countermeasures”
		5.4.1 Criteria for Consideration
		5.4.2 Intentions of Sanctioning States
	5.5 Concluding Remarks
	References
6 Impact of the Ukraine Conflict on Inter-State Dispute Settlement Procedures: The Allegations of Genocide Case (Ukraine v. Russia)
	6.1 Introduction
	6.2 The Court’s Jurisdiction Under the Genocide Convention
		6.2.1 Features of the Current Case
		6.2.2 The Court’s Order on Provisional Measures
		6.2.3 Individual Opinions Appended to the Order
		6.2.4 Compromissory Clauses of Multilateral Treaties
	6.3 The Paralyzed UN Security Council and the Court
		6.3.1 The Paralyzed UN Security Council and the Role of the UN General Assembly
		6.3.2 The Limited Role of the ICJ
	6.4 International Support for Ukraine: Declarations of Intervention
		6.4.1 Reaction of the International Community
		6.4.2 Intervention Under Article 63 of the ICJ Statute
		6.4.3 Multilateralization of International Judicial Settlements
	6.5 Conclusion
	References
Part II International Human Rights Law
7 Impacts on Refugee Law: Implications for Japanese Law, European Union Law and International Human Rights Law
	7.1 Introduction
	7.2 Definitional Theory of Refugee in the Japanese Immigration Act
	7.3 Treatment of the UNHCR Handbook and Guidelines in Japan
	7.4 Are Ukrainian ‘Displaced Persons’ Refugees Under the Refugee Convention?
	7.5 Japanese Immigration Bill and Introduction of “Complementary Protection”
	7.6 Conclusion
	References
8 Impacts on the Monitoring System of the United Nations Human Rights Treaties
	8.1 Introduction: Scope of This Chapter
	8.2 Extraterritorial State Responsibility and Applicability of UN Human Rights Treaties in Armed Conflict and Occupation
	8.3 State Reporting
		8.3.1 The Status of Reporting of the Two States and Respective Concluding Observations
		8.3.2 Emerging Asylum Issues for the Neighboring States
	8.4 Individual Communications
		8.4.1 Status of Ratification
		8.4.2 Admissibility Requirements
	8.5 Inter-State Communications
		8.5.1 Framework and Precedents
		8.5.2 Challenge of Conciliation
	8.6 Inquiry
		8.6.1 Legal Framework
		8.6.2 Practice
	8.7 Concluding Remarks
	References
9 Impacts of the Ukraine Conflict on European Human Rights Law: Challenges and Resilience of Multi-layered Regional Mechanisms
	9.1 Institutional Sanctions to the Aggressor
		9.1.1 Inclusion of Russia into the CoE
		9.1.2 Expulsion of Russia from the CoE
	9.2 Judicial Reactions to the Aggression
		9.2.1 Post-aggression Cases Brought to the ECtHR
		9.2.2 Pre-aggression Pending Cases Before the ECtHR
	9.3 Fact Finding of the Aggression
		9.3.1 Human Rights Violations Inside Ukraine
		9.3.2 Human Rights Violations Outside Ukraine
	9.4 Responsibility Invocation for the Aggression
		9.4.1 Prosecution
		9.4.2 Reparation
	9.5 Conclusion
	References
10 Impacts Relating to Gender Issues
	10.1 Gender-Based Persecution
		10.1.1 Gender-Based Persecution as a Crime Against Humanity
		10.1.2 Persecution Against LGBTQ+ Persons in Russian-Occupied Ukraine
		10.1.3 Prospects for Prosecution as the Crime Against Humanity of Gender-Based Persecution
	10.2 Protective Gear for Women Soldiers
		10.2.1 Protection of a State’s Own Soldiers in Armed Conflict as a Potential International Legal Obligation
		10.2.2 Protective Gear for Women Soldiers in the Ukrainian Military
		10.2.3 Possible Obligation of the Ukrainian Government to Provide Protective Gear to Women Soldiers
	10.3 Implications of the Conflict for the Legitimacy of International Human Rights Norms and Mechanisms
	10.4 Conclusion
	References
11 A Criminalised Commission of Inquiry into Ukraine: The Impact on Fact-Finding by  the Human Rights Council
	11.1 Introduction
	11.2 The Road to Criminalisation
		11.2.1 The Original Model of Fact-Finding
		11.2.2 Shifting Toward Criminalisation
	11.3 The Characteristics of Criminalisation
		11.3.1 A Criminalised Mandate
		11.3.2 The Application of International Criminal Law
		11.3.3 Publication of Outcomes
		11.3.4 Liaisons with Criminal Prosecution and Trial
	11.4 Characteristics of the Ukraine COI: Criminalisation and Beyond
		11.4.1 Aspects of Criminalisation
		11.4.2 New Aspects in the Ukraine COI
	11.5 Conclusion
	References
Part III International Humanitarian Law
12 Equal Application of International Humanitarian Law in Wars of Aggression: Impacts of the Russo–Ukrainian War
	12.1 Introduction
	12.2 Separation of JIB and JAB: Meaning and Rationale
		12.2.1 The Substance of the Principles
		12.2.2 Positive Legal Basis
		12.2.3 Substantive Justification
	12.3 Challenges to the Principle of Equal Application?
		12.3.1 Principle of Concurrent Application of JAB and JIB
		12.3.2 Interface Between JAB and JIB
		12.3.3 (Potential) Problems in the Russo-Ukrainian War
	12.4 Conclusion
	References
13 The Qualification of the Ukraine Conflict in International Humanitarian Law
	13.1 Introduction
	13.2 An Overview of the Facts of the Ukraine Conflict
	13.3 The Legal Framework of the Qualification of Conflicts in International Humanitarian Law
		13.3.1 An International Armed Conflict
		13.3.2 A Non-international Armed Conflict
		13.3.3 Internationalization of a Non-international Armed Conflict
	13.4 Evaluation of the Facts from the Perspective of International Law, Especially International Humanitarian Law
		13.4.1 Military Engagement Between Russia and Ukraine: An International Armed Conflict
		13.4.2 Military Engagement Between the Ukraine Government and the Pro-Russian Armed Groups
	13.5 Conclusions
	References
14 The Impact of the United Nations General Assembly’s Qualification of Aggression on the Law of Neutrality
	14.1 Introduction
	14.2 Conflicting Theories on the Contemporary Law of Neutrality
		14.2.1 Basic Content of Traditional Neutrality Duty
		14.2.2 Content of Neutrality Obligation and Existence of the Law of Neutrality in the Modern Era
	14.3 Neutrality and Collective Security of United Nations
	14.4 Special Circumstances of the Russo-Ukrainian Conflict—Qualification of the Aggression by the General Assembly of the United Nations
		14.4.1 Duties and Powers of the General Assembly of the United Nations with Respect to the Maintenance of International Peace and Security
		14.4.2 Recognition of Aggression by the General Assembly in the Russo-Ukrainian Conflict
	14.5 Applicability of the Law of Neutrality and Third State Options
		14.5.1 Conditions Under Which a Third State May Opt for the Law of Neutrality
		14.5.2 Attitudes to Be Taken by States that Do not Choose Neutrality
		14.5.3 Possibility of a Third State Choosing Neutrality
	14.6 Conclusion
	References
15 International Law of the Military Uses of Outer Space in Light of the War in Ukraine as the First Commercial Space War
	15.1 Introduction
	15.2 Existing International Law on the Military Uses of Outer Space
		15.2.1 Restrictions on the Military Uses of Outer Space Under the PTBT and the Outer Space Treaty
		15.2.2 The Current Scope of Permissible Military Uses of Outer Space
	15.3 Important Roles Played by Commercial Satellites in the War in Ukraine
		15.3.1 Communication Satellites
		15.3.2 Remote Sensing Satellites
	15.4 LOAC Applicable in Military Space Activities
		15.4.1 Applicability of the Additional Protocol I to Military Space Activities
		15.4.2 Conditions for Private Satellites to Become Military Objectives
		15.4.3 Challenges to Conduct a Lawful ASAT Operation in the War in Ukraine
		15.4.4 The Continued Operability of Article IX of the OST to Restrict ASAT Operations
	15.5 Law of Neutrality Irrelevant for Military Space Activities in the War in Ukraine
	15.6 Conclusion
	References
16 Unprivileged Belligerency in a Deterritorialized Cyber Battlefield? Some Lessons Learned from the Russia-Ukraine Conflict
	16.1 Introduction
	16.2 Probability of Ukraine’s Unprivileged Belligerency in Cyberspace
		16.2.1 Is the IT Army of Ukraine the Armed Forces of Ukraine?
		16.2.2 Territorial Limitation to the Levée En Masse
	16.3 Legal Consequences of Ukraine’s Unprivileged Belligerency in Cyberspace
		16.3.1 A Status Intermediate Between Combatants and Civilians?
		16.3.2 Targetability and the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities
		16.3.3 Does the Existing Law Effectively Deter Unprivileged Belligerency in Cyberspace?
	16.4 State Responsibility and Obligations for Ukraine’s Unprivileged Belligerency in Cyberspace
		16.4.1 Geneva Law
		16.4.2 Neutrality Law
	16.5 Conclusion
	References
Part IV International Criminal Law
17 The Ukrainian Conflict and the Crime of Aggression
	17.1 Introduction
	17.2 Historical Development of International Criminal Jurisdiction over the Crime of Aggression
		17.2.1 The Emergence of, and Criticism Towards, the Crime of Aggression
		17.2.2 Law-Making at the United Nations
		17.2.3 Developments After the End of the Cold War
	17.3 The Crime of Aggression and the Rome Statute
		17.3.1 Definition of the Crime of Aggression
		17.3.2 Issues Related to the Exercise of Jurisdiction
		17.3.3 The Scope of the ICC Jurisdiction over the Crime of Aggression
		17.3.4 Activation of the Kampala Amendments
		17.3.5 Russian Aggression, the ICC and the Alternatives
	17.4 The Historical Precedent
	17.5 Conclusion
	References
18 Ukraine Situation and Its Relationship to the Principle of Complementarity
	18.1 Introduction
	18.2 Ukraine and the Rome Statute
		18.2.1 Ukraine’s Acceptance of ICC Jurisdiction
		18.2.2 Constitutionality of the Rome Statute in Ukraine
	18.3 Positive Complementarity and the Ukraine Situation
		18.3.1 Positive, Passive, and Radical Complementarity
		18.3.2 First Arrest Warrants for the Ukrainian Situation by the ICC and Positive Complementarity
	18.4 Ukraine and Positive Complementarity
		18.4.1 Investigation and Prosecution by Ukraine
		18.4.2 Investigation and Prosecution by Russia
		18.4.3 Investigation and Prosecution by Other States
	18.5 Complementing the ICC’s Jurisdiction Over the Crime of Aggression
		18.5.1 Special Tribunal for Ukraine and Complementarity
		18.5.2 Universal Jurisdiction Over the Crime of Aggression by the Third State
	18.6 Building National and International Networks
		18.6.1 National Network
		18.6.2 System of International Cooperation
	18.7 Conclusion
	References
19 Impact on the International Cooperation with the International Criminal Court
	19.1 Introduction
	19.2 Traditional Obligatory, Centralized, and Unilateral Features of the Cooperation with International Tribunals
		19.2.1 Obligatory
		19.2.2 Centralized
		19.2.3 Unilateral
	19.3 New Voluntary, Decentralized, and Mutual Cooperation for Investigating Crimes Under the Russia-Ukraine War
		19.3.1 Voluntary
		19.3.2 Decentralized
		19.3.3 Mutual
	19.4 Conclusion
	References
20 The Role of the UN Security Council in International Criminal Law Revisited
	20.1 Introduction
	20.2 Development of International Criminal Law (ICL) and the SC
		20.2.1 The SC and the Basic Requirements of ICL
		20.2.2 The SC and the History of ICL
		20.2.3 The Post-Post-Cold War SC and ICL Up to 2022
	20.3 The ICC and the SC
		20.3.1 The SC and the Rome Statute
		20.3.2 Referral, Deferral and the Crime of Aggression
	20.4 Ukraine, the ICC and the SC
		20.4.1 The SC/P5 Responses to the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine
		20.4.2 Impact on the SC as an Agent of Jus Puniendi
		20.4.3 Impact on the Relationship Between the SC and the ICC
	20.5 The Way Forward
	References
21 Negotiating Peace and Justice: Norms on Amnesty and the International Criminal Court
	21.1 Introduction
	21.2 The Argument About the Relationship Between Peace and Justice
		21.2.1 ‘No Peace Without Justice’
		21.2.2 ‘Peace Versus Justice’
	21.3 Transitional Justice and the Denial of Amnesty
		21.3.1 Early Arguments on Transitional Justice
		21.3.2 The United Nations Approach to Transitional Justice
		21.3.3 The Relationship Between Amnesty and Criminal Justice-Centred Transitional Justice
	21.4 The Practice of Peace Agreements
		21.4.1 Sierra Leone
		21.4.2 Uganda
		21.4.3 Democratic Republic of the Congo
	21.5 The Interests of Justice, Peace and Amnesty Under the Rome Statute
		21.5.1 Article 53 of the Rome Statute and Peace
		21.5.2 Amnesty and Articles 17 and 53 of the Rome Statute
	21.6 Ukraine
		21.6.1 The Special Tribunal Established with the Support of the International Community
		21.6.2 Utilization of Amnesty
	21.7 Conclusion
	References
22 International Law Responses in Ukraine: Robust But Not Universal—The Asian Deficit in International Criminal Justice
	22.1 International Law Responses in the Political Bodies at the U.N.
		22.1.1 U.N. Security Council
		22.1.2 The U.N. General Assembly
	22.2 Responses at the International Courts
		22.2.1 The International Court of Justice
	22.3 The International Criminal Court
	22.4 Asia’s thin Presence in “Solidarity” Moves at the ICJ and ICC
	22.5 Concluding Thoughts
23 Impact on Domestic Criminal Law—German Experiences with Universal Jurisdiction and Immunity
	23.1 Introduction
	23.2 Principle of Complementarity and Implementation of Core Crimes
	23.3 Implementation of Core Crimes in Germany
		23.3.1 Special Part
		23.3.2 General Part
	23.4 Functional Immunity for Core Crimes Before Domestic Courts?
		23.4.1 Facts and Procedural History
		23.4.2 Munich Higher Regional Court (OLG München), Judgment of 26 July 2019
		23.4.3 Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof), Judgment of 28 January 2021
	23.5 Reactions of the German Judiciary to Core Crimes Allegedly Committed in the Ukraine Conflict
	23.6 Outlook—Impact of the Ukraine Conflict on Domestic Criminal Law
	References