The territorial integrity of States is one of the historical pillars of international law and its concept is closely linked to that of territorial sovereignty. Although the rule was already consolidated before 1945, the UN Charter reaffirmed its importance and went further, by providing that Member States must refrain from threatening or using force against the territorial integrity and political independence of a State.
After the Second World War, armed conflicts took place –on a greater or lesser scale– that respond both to uses enabled by the architecture of the international legal system itself, and to uses of force not permitted by international law. The former includes military actions authorized by the UN Security Council, or the use of individual or collective legitimate defense. In relation to the latter, it is possible to mention “preventive” legitimate defense, a course not admitted in the UN Charter.
When there is a violation of the basic rules of the international community – such as respect for territorial sovereignty or the restoration of territorial integrity – the question arises about the appropriate way to restore the lost balance. It is a characteristic of international law to be eminently decentralized, which is a consequence of the voluntary state principle applied to the system, a pillar in the rules of coexistence for the community of States. Thus, In the face of the violation of the territorial integrity of a State (and with it, its sovereignty), the system’s political response initially presents decentralized characteristics, in which each State that opposes said action determines how to respond to the challenge. Logically, the individual measures that a more “powerful” State can adopt will not be the same as another of less weight or political influence. For example, while certain States may decide to send weapons and military personnel, others will establish economic-commercial sanctions, while some will limit themselves to expressing a claim or declaration of a diplomatic nature, condemning the violation of territorial integrity.
Currently our society is attentive to the events of the last days between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, but the previous ideas also invite us to reflect on the most important dispute of the Argentine Republic and its foreign policy: the bilateral dispute with the United Kingdom over the sovereignty of the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and the corresponding maritime and insular spaces.
Indeed, the violation of the territorial integrity of Argentina by the United Kingdom in 1833, and the Russian actions in Ukraine, which began in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea and added another chapter in February 2022, present some similarities that seem to be noticed in the strategies deployed. We can point out that these are military acts of the main powers against newly independent States, with a clear asymmetry of power and influence with respect to the invader; and the violation of territorial integrity, through a de facto occupation and the subsequent strategy of trying to recognize independence in the portions of occupied territories, obeying geopolitical or strategic criteria and needs.
Paradoxically, the United Kingdom has condemned the Russian Federation in the votes held both in the Security Council (whose draft resolution could not be adopted due to Russia’s veto) and in the UN General Assembly, which was approved by the overwhelming majority of 141 affirmative votes.
As for our country – which supported the affirmative vote for the adoption of the Resolution in the General Assembly – we believe that an active presence is necessary to favor the peaceful outcome of this issue, as we were able to do in the run-up to the Antiwar Treaty of non-aggression and conciliation of 1933 (known as the “Saavedra Lamas Pact”), which established the permanent pillars of peace and harmony on the Continent, and condemned the wars of aggression that sought territorial acquisitions.
Attempting to justify the violation of Ukrainian territorial integrity is not only contrary to the best chapters of Argentine diplomatic history, but it would constitute an inconsistency with the permanent position of our country regarding the Malvinas Question.
Source: Ambito
