Non-Belligerent
The law of neutrality seeks to preserve friendly relations between belligerent and neutral States by permitting States to avoid taking sides in an armed conflict. Soon after war broke out in August 1914, America began to supply food, materials and even munitions to Britain and other German enemies, such as Italy. Neutral States have an obligation to refrain from providing war-related goods and services to belligerents. A neutral State is prohibited from supplying a belligerent State in any manner, either directly or indirectly, with warships, ammunition, or war material of any kind.The law of neutrality prescribes the legal relationship between belligerent States and neutral States. Belligerent State refers to a State that is engaged in an international armed conflict, whether or not a formal declaration of war has been made. Neutral State refers to a State that is not taking part in the armed conflict. Commercial transactions between belligerent States and neutral corporations, companies, citizens, or persons resident in a neutral State are not prohibited.
The term "non-belligerent"or "non-belligerent State"has been used to refer to a State that is not participating in the armed conflict. In addition, the term "non-belligerent"has been used to refer to States that sought to refrain from active participation in hostilities, but that did not adhere to the duties of strict impartiality to which neutrals have traditionally been required to adhere. Such departure from the traditional duties of impartiality has, at times, been controversial.
The United States has taken the position that certain duties of neutral States may be inapplicable under the doctrine of qualified neutrality. The law of neutrality has traditionally required neutral States to observe a strict impartiality between parties to a conflict, regardless of which State was viewed as the aggressor in the armed conflict. However, after treaties outlawed war as a matter of national policy, it was argued that neutral States could discriminate in favor of States that were victims of wars of aggression.
Thus, before its entry into World War II, the United States adopted a position of "qualified neutrality"in which neutral States had the right to support belligerent States that had been the victim of flagrant and illegal wars of aggression. This position was controversial. At the Inter-American Bar Association, Havana, Cuba, March 27, 1941, US Attorney General Robert H. Jackson delivered an address designed to prove that as a matter of law the United States was now obliged to render to England (and presumably others) all aid ‘short of war,' while ‘at the same time it is the declared determination of the government to avoid entry into the war as a belligerent.'
"Present aggressive wars are civil wars against the international community. Accordingly, as responsible members of that community, we can treat victims of aggression in the same way we treat legitimate governments when there is civil strife and a state of insurgency — that is to say, we are permitted to give to defending governments all the aid we choose. In the light of the flagrancy of current aggressions, which are apparent on their face, and which all right thinking people recognize for what they are, the United States and other states are entitled to assert a right of discriminatory action by reason of the fact that, since 1928 so far as it is concerned, the place of war and with it the place of neutrality in the international legal system have no longer been the same as they were prior to that date."
Traditional international law left to each state the sovereign decision of whether, at the outbreak of a conflict between other states, it would participate or remain neutral. At the outbreak of a conflict between two other states, a state is still free to participate or to remain neutral. Modern international law, however, limits the freedom of decision as to which side on which a state may become involved. Support granted to an aggressor is illegal, participation on the side of the victim of aggression, being collective self-defence, is permissible."
The term "co-belligerent" refers to States engaged in an international armed conflict with a common enemy, whether in alliance with each other or not. Although the concept of "co-belligerency" is not enshrined in the Law of Armed Conflict, it raises the question of the moment in time, or the threshold, at which the support given by one or several State(s) to another in its fight against a common enemy makes them party to that armed conflict. In the case of the war in Ukraine, the support given by a large number of States to Kyiv, particularly through arms transfers, does not make these states "co-belligerents".
In the early 20th century, in time of war, a belligerent would be unable to get supplies from foreign governments unless they should join it as co-belligerents. For as international law stood then, the supply of munitions by a neutral government to a belligerant would constitute a violation of neutrality. A belligerent would have to depend upon its own production and that of its allies.
The general adoption by the nations of the world of the theory that neutral powers ought to prohibit the sale of arms and ammunition to belligerents would compel every nation to have in readiness at all times sufficient munitions of war to mect any emergency which might arise and to erect and maintain establishments for the manufacture of arms and ammunition sufficient to supply the needs of its military and naval forces throughout the progress of a war. Manifestly the application of this theory would result in every nation becoming an armed camp.
In the Great aWar, the US Army had to handle the problem of the aliens from neutral or co-belligerent countries. With the co-belligerents, the US negotiated reciprocal treaties which permitted yhr US to draft their nationals for service in the Army. Neutral aliens could, by declaring an intention to become American citizens, render themselves liable to military service. Many co-belligerent and neutral aliens were in the volunteer organizations.
On August 7, 1918, the Polish National Committee addressed to the French Government a proposal that the Polish National Committee be recognized by France and other governments as the supreme political authority of the Polish Army and that the said Committee should appoint a commander-in-chief of the Polish Army in France and of all Polish military forces wherever they might be organized. The Government of Great Britain by an official act of October 15, 1918, recognized the Polish National Army as autonomous, allied and co-belligerent. The Government of the United States associated itself with the Governments of France and Great Britain by recognizing the Polish Army, under the supreme political authority of the Polish National Committee, as autonomous, allied, and co-belligerent.
On 13 October 1943 the Governments of Great Britain, the United States and the Soviet Union acknowledged the position of the Royal Italian Government as stated by Marshal Badoglio and accept the active co-operation of the Italian nation and armed forces as a co-belligerent in the war against Germany. The military events since 8 September and the brutal maltreatment by the Germans of the Italian population, culminating in the Italian declaration of war against Germany have in fact made Italy a co-belligerent and the American, British and Soviet Governments will continue to work with the Italian Government on that basis.
German Minister of Justice and Consumer Protection Marco Buschman did not believe that Germany will become a party to the conflict in Ukraine if it supplies Kyiv with Leopard-2 tanks. The minister said in an interview with the Augsburger Allgemeine newspaper 13 January 2023, that Ukraine is "waging a defensive war" and therefore Germany, according to him, has the right to supply it with weapons. "In this regard, we will not become a belligerent regardless of the quality of the [supplied] weapons," the minister said. Answering a question about the possibility of transferring Leopards to Kyiv, Bushman said that "this cannot be a taboo."
Since Russia began its special operation in Ukraine in late February 2022, the US intelligence agencies used a variety of sources, including classified and commercial satellites, to trace Russian troop movements. Washington provided intelligence about Russian units that helped Ukrainian forces kill many of the Russian generals in the war. In the meantime, the United States provided training to Ukrainian forces at multiple locations in Europe.
Russia accused the United States of coordinating military operations in Ukraine, saying the move amounts to Washington's direct involvement in military action against Moscow. Vyacheslav Volodin, who as the speaker of the lower house of the Russian parliament often voiced the Kremlin's views, made the remarks in a post in May. "Washington is essentially coordinating and developing military operations, thereby directly participating in military actions against our country," the Duma chairman said. He said foreign advisers had been working in Ukraine since what he called the "coup d'etat," in an apparent reference to President Volodymyr Zelenskiy's democratic election in 2019.
In an interview with the Telegraph published on 01 August 2022, Vadim Skibitsky, a representative of the Main Directorate of Intelligence of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine refused to answer questions about whose satellites were used for strikes when talking about US HIMARS multiple launch rocket systems. The Ukrainian official, however, said that they consult with the US before launching strikes and that Washington has veto power over decision-making.
The Russian Foreign Ministry said that the United States is directly involved in the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on 02 August 2022 that the statements made by Skibitsky confirm America's involvement in the conflict. "No other confirmation of the direct involvement of the United States in hostilities on the territory of Ukraine is required," Zakharova said on Tuesday because Washington doesn't just arm and train Ukrainian forces but essentially shoots the weapons themselves.
The Russian official pointed out that the US is directly involved and that its distance from the situation is irrelevant. "They are fully involved. Now Kiev representatives are talking about their military involvement not only through the supply of weapons, but through personnel management in the ranks of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, direct instructions and the choice of targets," Zakharova added.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov accused the West of becoming directly involved in the Ukraine war by supplying the country with weapons and training its soldiers. "You shouldn't say that the US and NATO aren't taking part in this war. You are directly participating in it," Lavrov said during a press briefing on 01 December 2022. "And not just by providing weapons but also by training personnel. You are training their military on your territory, on the territories of Britain, Germany, Italy and other countries." Lavrov accused the US and its NATO allies of trampling on international law while trying to isolate and destroy Russia. He said the ongoing Russian strikes were intended to weaken Ukraine's military potential and derail the shipments of Western weapons.
The United States and its NATO allies are seeking to win a victory over Russia on the `battlefield' to destroy our country, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told TASS in an interview 27 December 2022. "The actions by the collective West and their puppet [Ukrainian President Vladimir] Zelensky confirm the global nature of the Ukrainian crisis. It is no secret that the strategic goal of the US and its NATO allies is to win a victory over Russia on the battlefield as a mechanism of weakening or even destroying our country," Lavrov said. "Our opponents will just do about anything to achieve this goal," he added.
"Our proposals for the demilitarization and denazification of the territories controlled by the regime, the elimination of threats to Russia's security emanating from there, including our new lands, are well known to the enemy," state news agency TASS quoted Lavrov as saying. "The point is simple: Fulfil them for your own good. Otherwise, the issue will be decided by the Russian army."
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
