Introduction
On the 13th day of September 2024, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) convened at Russia's request to discuss the legality of Western arms deliveries to Ukraine. Russia sought to highlight how these arms transfers allegedly violated international law and contributed to prolonging the conflict. This note analyzes Russia's legal claims, particularly its references to international humanitarian law (IHL) and various UN Security Council Resolutions governing arms control. Additionally, the paper explores the role of domestic courts in enforcing international legal standards and the incorporation of international treaties into national legal systems to regulate arms transfers.
Izumi Nakamitsu’s Briefing on Arms Transfers
The session began with a briefing from Izumi Nakamitsu, the UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, who expressed grave concerns about the increasing transfer of heavy conventional weapons and ammunition into Ukraine. She outlined that battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, missile systems, helicopters, and remotely operated munitions were among the arms transferred. Additionally, small arms, light weapons, and their ammunition were being supplied to conflict zones. Nakamitsu highlighted reports of states transferring or planning to transfer uncrewed aerial vehicles (UCAVs) and ballistic missiles to Russian forces, where they were reportedly used in Ukraine.
Nakamitsu stressed the need for strict compliance with UN Security Council Resolutions, which in many cases impose sanctions and restrictive measures on arms transfers. Of particular concern were violations of UNSC Resolution 2231 (2015), which governs arms transfers to and from Iran under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and UNSC Resolutions 1718 (2006) and 1874 (2009), which prohibit North Korea from engaging in arms transfers. She also expressed concern over the use of cluster munitions and the widespread contamination of Ukraine with mines and explosive remnants of war. Nakamitsu emphasized the importance of adhering to international arms control treaties, such as the Convention on Cluster Munitions, the Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines, and the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.
Nakamitsu urged all states to adhere to their obligations under IHL, particularly the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, which obligate parties to a conflict to protect civilians and minimize unnecessary suffering. She highlighted the need for stringent pre-transfer risk assessments, better tracking, and investigation capabilities to prevent the diversion of conventional arms into illicit markets. Her remarks set the tone for the discussion, focusing on the importance of compliance with international law and the ongoing need for universal participation in disarmament treaties.
Russia’s Position and Motivation for Convening the Meeting
Russia’s motivation for convening the UNSC meeting was to criticize the continued supply of Western arms to Ukraine, which it argued was exacerbating the conflict and violating international law. Russia framed its argument by referencing key legal provisions, including Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, and Article 51 of the UN Charter, which provides the right of self-defense in the event of an armed attack. Russia claimed its military actions were defensive, emphasizing its legal obligation to protect Russian civilians from Ukrainian aggression, and alleged that Ukraine’s use of Western-supplied arms was leading to widespread civilian casualties and destruction of civilian infrastructure, in violation of international law.
Russia’s legal critique focused on several UN Security Council Resolutions, most notably UNSC Resolution 2231 (2015), which governs arms transfers involving Iran, and UNSC Resolutions 1718 (2006) and 1874 (2009), which impose arms embargoes and sanctions on North Korea. Russia argued that Western states, by supplying advanced weapons systems to Ukraine, were violating the principles established by these resolutions. Additionally, Russia cited the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), particularly Article 6, which prohibits the transfer of arms if there is a clear risk that they would be used to commit serious violations of IHL.
Russia also accused Ukraine of using chemical weapons, in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, specifically Article I, which prohibits the development, production, and use of chemical weapons. Russia alleged that the transfer of Western arms to Ukraine facilitated the violation of these international legal norms and exacerbated the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine.
Legal Arguments on Arms Transfers and International Law
Central to Russia's argument was the claim that Western arms transfers to Ukraine were illegal under international law, including the ATT and various UN Security Council Resolutions. UNSC Resolution 2231 (2015) was particularly significant, as it restricts arms transfers to and from Iran, and Russia implied that Western countries were indirectly supporting a broader arms proliferation network by allowing arms deliveries that could eventually reach conflict zones like Ukraine. UNSC Resolutions 1718 (2006) and 1874 (2009), which impose sanctions and arms embargoes on North Korea, were also highlighted as examples of how the global arms control regime was being undermined.
Russia further argued that Western arms transfers violated Article 6 of the ATT, which prohibits the transfer of arms if they are likely to be used in serious violations of IHL. IHL principles, as codified in the Geneva Conventions, require that parties to a conflict distinguish between combatants and civilians, and prohibit indiscriminate attacks on civilian infrastructure. Russia claimed that Ukraine's use of Western arms violated these principles, thereby implicating the Western states that supplied the weapons. Russia's reference to Article 2(4) of the UN Charter was also aimed at framing Western support for Ukraine as an indirect violation of the prohibition against the use of force. By supplying arms to Ukraine, Russia claimed that Western nations were effectively contributing to Ukraine's military efforts, thereby violating the territorial integrity of Ukraine's contested regions.
Russia’s Broader Aim: Shifting the International Narrative
Russia’s broader aim in convening the UNSC meeting was to shift the international narrative by focusing on Western responsibility for escalating the conflict. Russia sought to portray Western arms transfers as the primary obstacle to achieving peace, while downplaying its own violations of international law, including the illegal annexation of Ukrainian territories and the indiscriminate targeting of civilians. By casting Ukraine’s military efforts as dependent on Western arms, Russia aimed to undermine the legitimacy of Ukraine’s defense and depict the conflict as one driven by Western intervention, rather than Russian aggression. Additionally, Russia’s allegations of chemical weapons use by Ukraine were intended to delegitimize Ukraine’s military actions and discredit the international community’s support for Ukraine. By raising these allegations, Russia sought to deflect attention from its own violations of IHL and present itself as a state acting within the bounds of international law.
The Role of Domestic Courts in Curbing Arms Deliveries
While international bodies like the UNSC can address the legality of arms transfers, domestic courts also play a crucial role in enforcing international legal standards within national jurisdictions. Several countries, including the United Kingdom, Germany, and France, have legal systems that allow for the incorporation of international treaties and UN Security Council Resolutions into domestic law, providing a mechanism for challenging arms transfers that violate international obligations.
United Kingdom’s Position
The United Kingdom condemned Russia’s violation of international law and the UN Charter, particularly through its illegal invasion of Ukraine. The UK supported Ukraine’s right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, while criticizing Russia for procuring arms from North Korea and Iran in violation of Security Council Resolutions 1718 (2006), 1874 (2009), and 2231 (2015). The UK emphasized that Russia’s illegal war is being fueled by these unlawful arms transfers and condemned the targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure, which violates IHL.
In the United Kingdom, the ATT has been incorporated into domestic law, and courts have the authority to review arms exports based on their compliance with international law. Judicial review processes allow courts to assess whether arms transfers pose a risk of being used in serious violations of IHL, as prohibited under Article 6 of the ATT. In the Case of Campaign Against Arms Trade v. Secretary of State for International Trade (2019), the UK Court of Appeal ruled that arms exports to Saudi Arabia, which were used in the Yemen conflict, violated IHL due to their potential contribution to war crimes. This case demonstrates the power of domestic courts to scrutinize and potentially block arms transfers that violate international law.
The UK's condemnation of Russia for procuring arms from North Korea and Iran under UN Security Council Resolutions reflects a selective approach to international law. While the UK rightly criticizes Russia for violating international norms through unlawful arms transfers, its own actions undermine the credibility of these criticisms. The UK government continues to defend its arms exports to Saudi Arabia, despite documents showing the use of British-made weapons in attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure in Yemen (Bromley, M., & Cooper, N. (2020). The Arms Trade Treaty and Its Implementation: Ensuring Compliance or Promoting Hypocrisy? Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)). This selective application of international law raises questions about the consistency of the UK's foreign policy and its commitment to upholding international legal standards.
Additionally, the UK's reliance on domestic judicial review processes to assess the legality of arms transfers has revealed significant flaws. Although the Court of Appeal ruled against arms sales to Saudi Arabia in 2019, the UK government later resumed these sales after a review, claiming that there was no “clear risk” of IHL violations. This decision suggests that economic and strategic interests may be prioritized over legal obligations, further highlighting the double standards in the UK’s arms export policies. The double standards are evident in the UK’s arms export policies. UK’s selective enforcement of arms control measures reflects a broader pattern in which economic interests, particularly in maintaining lucrative defense contracts, take precedence over human rights and international legal obligations. This critique is particularly relevant in the context of the Yemen conflict, where arms exports have continued despite widespread evidence of violations of IHL. UK's position undermines the ATT and weakens international efforts to regulate arms transfers in a way that prioritizes civilian protection. By continuing arms sales to countries like Saudi Arabia, the UK risks contributing to the erosion of the ATT’s credibility and effectiveness as a legal tool for preventing arms from being used in IHL violations.
France’s Position
The French government's stance on Russia's aggression against Ukraine, particularly regarding arms procurement from North Korea and Iran, reveals potential double standards when viewed in light of France's own arms export practices. While France condemns Russia’s actions and highlights violations of international law, its arms sales to nations involved in conflict or human rights violations, such as Saudi Arabia and Israel, raise questions of consistency and adherence to the same legal principles. This divergence becomes particularly evident when analyzing France's obligations under international law, including the ATT and UNSC resolutions.
First, France’s condemnation of Russia’s violations of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and the procurement of arms from North Korea and Iran points to a robust commitment to upholding international norms. Article 2(4) prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, a principle that France argues Russia has violated by invading Ukraine. France also points to UNSC Resolutions 1718 (2006), 1874 (2009), and 2231 (2015), which impose arms embargoes on North Korea and Iran. By calling for strict enforcement of these resolutions, France highlights its commitment to international law in the context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict (UNSC, 2006; UNSC, 2009; UNSC, 2015).
However, France’s own arms export practices reveal a conflicting narrative. The country has consistently sold arms to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), both of which are involved in the Yemeni civil war, a conflict that has led to severe humanitarian consequences and widespread violations of IHL.
Despite the ATT’s requirement that arms-exporting states ensure their weapons are not used to commit human rights violations or breach IHL, France has continued its arms trade with these countries. Scholars have pointed out that while France emphasizes legal frameworks when condemning Russian actions, it appears to downplay or overlook these same frameworks in the context of its own arms exports. Moreover, France’s courts, through the incorporation of international treaties and UNSC resolutions into domestic law, have the legal authority to scrutinize arms exports. The Constitutional Council has affirmed the supremacy of international law, particularly UNSC resolutions and the ATT, over domestic. This principle enables French courts to block arms exports that violate international obligations, as outlined by UNSC resolutions, or lead to violations of IHL under the ATT. Yet, there has been little evidence of French courts effectively using this authority to halt controversial arms sales, even when evidence suggests that these exports may contribute to human rights abuses.
The juxtaposition of France’s position on Russia’s arms procurement and its own arms export policies highlights an apparent double standard. While France demands compliance with international law and UNSC resolutions from Russia, it continues to engage in arms sales to nations involved in conflicts that violate the same legal principles it claims to uphold. This inconsistency is further compounded by the fact that French courts, despite their legal powers, have not fully enforced the country’s international legal obligations regarding arms transfers. As scholars have noted, such practices undermine the credibility of states like France when they call for the enforcement of international legal norms on others while selectively adhering to them domestically.
Conclusion
Russia’s convening of the UN Security Council meeting was a strategic attempt to shift international focus onto the legality of Western arms transfers to Ukraine and to frame these transfers as violations of international law. By referencing key legal instruments, such as the UN Charter, UN Security Council Resolutions, and the ATT, Russia aimed to portray itself as adhering to international norms while depicting Western nations as destabilizing forces in the conflict.
However, the role of domestic courts in enforcing international legal standards provides an additional layer of accountability. Courts in countries such as the United Kingdom, Germany, and France have the power to review arms transfers under both domestic and international law, potentially blocking exports that contribute to violations of IHL or undermine global arms control efforts. By leveraging domestic legal mechanisms, these courts can help ensure that arms transfers comply with international obligations, even in the absence of decisive action by international bodies like the UN Security Council.
Incorporating international law into domestic judicial systems allows states to uphold global legal norms and prevent the escalation of conflicts through unchecked arms transfers. As the Ukraine conflict continues, the role of both international and domestic legal frameworks will remain critical in addressing the legal complexities surrounding arms deliveries and ensuring accountability for violations of international law.
Commenti