Sunday

22nd Apr 2018

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.

Thank you for reading EUobserver!

Subscribe now for a 30 day free trial.

  1. €150 per year
  2. or €15 per month
  3. Cancel anytime

EUobserver is an independent, not-for-profit news organization that publishes daily news reports, analysis, and investigations from Brussels and the EU member states. We are an indispensable news source for anyone who wants to know what is going on in the EU.

We are mainly funded by advertising and subscription revenues. As advertising revenues are falling fast, we depend on subscription revenues to support our journalism.

For group, corporate or student subscriptions, please contact us. See also our full Terms of Use.

If you already have an account click here to login.

  • 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

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.

More commitment to renewables from Council, please

More and more consumers are likely to invest in solar panels in the future as it becomes simpler to produce one's own electricity, writes Monique Goyens, director general of BEUC, the European Consumer Organisation.

How to reset EU-Burma relations

Europe should go back to its pre-2012 policy, wipe away aid and trade benefits, and tie democratic efforts to the reinstatement of benefits.

News in Brief

  1. Audit office: Brexit 'divorce' bill could be billions higher
  2. MEPs urge better protection for journalists
  3. Dieselgate: MEPs back greater role for EU in car approvals
  4. European parliament adopts new organic farming rules
  5. EU granted protection to half million people in 2017
  6. Report: Facebook to carve 1.5bn users out of EU privacy law
  7. Greek court ruling permits migrants to travel to mainland
  8. Commonwealth summit hopes for trade boost after Brexit

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Nordic Council of MinistersWorld's Energy Ministers to Meet in Oresund in May to Discuss Green Energy
  2. ILGA EuropeParabéns! Portugal Votes to Respect the Rights of Trans and Intersex People
  3. Mission of China to the EUJobs, Energy, Steel: Government Work Report Sets China's Targets
  4. Martens CentreJoin Us at NET@WORK2018 Featuring Debates on Migration, Foreign Policy, Populism & Disinformation
  5. European Jewish CongressKantor Center Annual Report on Antisemitism Worldwide - The Year the Mask Came Off
  6. UNICEFCalls for the Protection of Children in the Gaza Strip
  7. Mission of China to the EUForeign Minister Wang Yi Highlights Importance of China-EU Relations
  8. Nordic Council of MinistersImmigration and Integration in the Nordic Region - Getting the Facts Straight
  9. Macedonian Human Rights MovementMacedonians in Bulgaria Demand to End the Anti-Macedonian Name Negotiations
  10. Counter BalanceThe EIB Needs to Lead by Example on Tax Justice
  11. ILGA EuropeTrans People in Sweden to be Paid Compensation for Forced Sterilisation
  12. International Partnership for Human RightsThe Danger of Standing Up for Justice and Rights in Central Asia

Latest News

  1. ECJ ruling set to end 10-year 'mouth tobacco' lobbying saga
  2. Whistleblowers, Syria and digital revolution This WEEK
  3. MEP friendship groups offer 'backdoor' for pariah regimes
  4. Macron and Merkel pledge euro reform
  5. Obscurity surrounds EU military fund's expert groups
  6. New EU party finance rules short circuit accountability
  7. Draghi to stay in secretive 'lobby' group
  8. Bulgaria offers lesson in tackling radical-right populists

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Mission of China to the EUChina and EU Must Work Together to Promote Global Steel Sector
  2. Swedish EnterprisesEU Tax Proposal on Digital Services Causes Concern for Small Exporting Economies
  3. Europea Jewish CongressCondemns the Horrific Murder of Holocaust Survivor Mireille Knoll in Paris
  4. Mission of China to the EUAn Open China Will Foster a World-Class Business Environment
  5. ECR GroupAn Opportunity to Help Shape a Better Future for Europe
  6. Counter BalanceControversial Turkish Azerbaijani Gas Pipeline Gets Major EU Loan
  7. World VisionSyria’s Children ‘At Risk of Never Fully Recovering', New Study Finds
  8. Macedonian Human Rights MovementMeets with US Congress Member to Denounce Anti-Macedonian Name Negotiations
  9. Martens CentreEuropean Defence Union: Time to Aim High?
  10. UNESDAWatch UNESDA’s President Toast Its 60th Anniversary Year
  11. AJC Transatlantic InstituteAJC Condemns MEP Ana Gomes’s Anti-Semitic Remark, Calls for Disciplinary Action
  12. EPSUEU Commissioners Deny 9.8 Million Workers Legal Minimum Standards on Information Rights