Sunday

23rd Jan 2022

Opinion

Russia and the Budapest memorandum

The Budapest Memorandum of 5 December 1994 - officially the Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine's Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons - was signed by the Presidents of Ukraine, the Russian Federation and the US, and the Prime Minister of the UK to provide national security assurances to Ukraine.

China and France joined its provisions at a later stage in the form of individual statements.

Read and decide

Join EUobserver today

Become an expert on Europe

Get instant access to all articles — and 20 years of archives. 14-day free trial.

... or subscribe as a group

  • Crimea: By militarily invading and annexing the region, Russia has acted in breach of its obligations (Photo: Evgeni Zotov)

In return for the security assurances by the great powers, Ukraine decided to give up what was then the world’s third largest nuclear weapons stockpile and acceded to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The memorandum consists of 6 provisions and is not restricted to threats or the use of nuclear weapons.

Articles 1 and 2 impose clear-cut obligations on Russia to respect the political independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine, within its “existing borders” of 1994, and not to threaten it or use force by any means.

By militarily invading and annexing Crimea, Russia has acted in breach of its obligations under the Budapest memorandum.

In spite of what its name suggests, the memorandum qualifies as an international agreement under the terms of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

It thus creates legally binding obligations for the guarantor states and could become the object of inter-state litigation before the International Court of Justice. However, the chances of that happening are slim.

Russia has not issued a declaration recognizing as compulsory the jurisdiction of the court. This means that Moscow retains the right to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the court has jurisdiction.

Given the circumstances it is unlikely that the Kremlin would accept the Court’s jurisdiction to hear a dispute over the Budapest memorandum filed by Ukraine or any of the other permanent members of the UN Security Council which have signed up to it.

In the same vein, Putin’s Russia seems unfazed that it is violating general principles of international law underpinning the current world order, i.e. those contained in the UN Charter (Articles 2.4 and Article 2.7), and the 1975 Helsinki Final Act.

Under the terms of the UN Charter, the use of force in another state’s territory is only justified when mandated by the UN Security Council - quod non - or in case of self-defence. Since there was no prior armed attack from the Ukrainian armed forces against Russia, the latter exception cannot be invoked either.

The argument first advanced by Moscow to justify its military intervention was that it acted in defence of Russian speakers and passport holders whose human rights and fundamental freedoms were said to be violated by a fascist regime in Kiev which seized power by unconstitutional means.

However, in the absence of hard facts presented by Moscow to back up the claim of gross and persistent violations of Russian minority members’ fundamental rights by the new Ukrainian authorities, the brief interruption of a law on regional languages by the Rada does not provide the legal cover to effectively invoke self-defence or the claim of “Responsibility to Protect,” a principle which - ironically - Russia has fanatically sought to prevent from solidifying under international law.

A subsidiary argument presented at the UN Security Council by ambassador Vitaly Churkin was that Russia had intervened upon the written invitation of Viktor Yanukovych, the deposed yet “legitimate” President of Ukraine, to establish peace and stability in his homeland.

Moscow keeps repeating that Germany, France and Poland should honour the terms of the February 21 agreement (by which Yanukovich agreed with the opposition leaders of the Maidan movement to restore the Constitution of 2004, to form a national unity government, and hold early Presidential elections) which they signed.

However, it strikes one as particularly odd for Russia to promote the application of an agreement which it refused to sign up to when it had the chance.

What the Kremlin also seems to forget is that Yanukovych was subsequently abandoned by his own party and impeached by the Ukrainian Parliament.

Most damningly in the misguided motivation for Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine is Churkin’s statement that Yanukovych’ letter to President Putin was dated 1 March, whereas Russian troops had already taken up positions around strategic locations on the Crimean peninsula on 28 February.

By Russia’s own admission, therefore, it had already violated binding norms of international law.

The latter seems emblematic for the “couldn’t care less” attitude of Putin’s Russia.

So far, the Kremlin has not bothered to seriously rebut allegations by the US and the EU that it has violated the terms of the Budapest memorandum.

More worryingly, the Moscow allows itself to be inconsistent with its own commitments and is reneging its own words.

This has all the trappings of a panicking dictatorship, which crushes dissent at home and portrays confidence in winning a great battle with the enemy abroad. How can anybody trust what Putin’s Russia says or commits to in the future?

The writer is an analyst at the Brussels-based think tank, the Centre for European Policy Studies

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author's, not those of EUobserver.

Ukraine: The Empire strikes back

If the international community allows Russia to partition Ukraine despite the Budapest treaty, it will send a terrible signal.

On 'doing' Ukraine

Russian TV anchors have started to rebel against Putin's propaganda, while Ashton "does" Ukraine, and the Maidan adds two and two.

Macron's vision will hit EU Council veto buffers

President Emmanuel Macron's address to the European Parliament championed a bold and ambitious pro-European agenda. There is one problem though - the plans rely on a system of governance that has gridlocked the EU for over a decade.

Tomorrow MEPs can end EU animal export horror show

On Thursday, MEPs must press for a ban on all live exports outside the EU, and call for overall journey times within the EU to be limited to four hours for poultry and rabbits, and eight hours for other animals.

Column

An EU-Africa 'equal partnership' must tackle past and present

Competition is fierce and getting African leaders' attention is no easy task. US president Joe Biden has his own Africa summit, and Turkey, Japan, Russia and - most importantly - China, also have Africa forums up and running.

News in Brief

  1. 'No embargo' on meetings with Putin, EU says
  2. Austria to fine unvaccinated people €3,600
  3. MEP: Airlines should start paying for CO2 sooner
  4. Twitter forced to disclose what it does to tackle hate speech
  5. EU watchdog calls for ban on political microtargeting
  6. MEPs adopt position on Digital Service Act
  7. Blinken delivers stark warning to Russia in Berlin
  8. Hungary's Orbán to discuss nuclear project with Putin

Gas and nuclear: a lose-lose scenario for Eastern Europe

The strong advocacy of Central and Eastern European capitals for including fossil gas and nuclear power in the EU's green taxonomy only leads to another unsustainable energy lock-in for the region, leaving their grid exposed to third-country coercion.

Latest News

  1. Lawyers threaten action over new EU gas and nuclear rules
  2. MEPs urge inclusion of abortion rights in EU charter
  3. EU orders Poland to pay €70m in fines
  4. Dutch mayors protest strict lockdown measures
  5. Macron promises strong EU borders
  6. MEPs to crackdown on digital 'Wild West'
  7. Macron calls for new security order and talks with Russia
  8. Macron's vision will hit EU Council veto buffers

Join EUobserver

Support quality EU news

Join us