Modern Concept of Aggression and Legal Principles for the Settlement of Regional Armed Conflicts

Abstract

The legitimacy of states’ responses to acts of aggression in the context of modern international law is closely linked to the institution of humanitarian intervention and the right to self-defense in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Aim. To formulate principles of legal interaction between states to overcome military tensions in the Eurasian region. Methods. A diachronic analysis of the institution of aggression in international law aims to develop norms of humanitarian law that are adequate to contemporary realities and that deter states from the unfounded and unjustified use of force. Results. The United Nations Security Council remains the primary legitimate element of the international legal mechanism for holding states and their military and political leadership accountable for aggression. Conclusions. Direct and indirect aggression differ significantly in the formal nature of the legitimization of unfriendly actions, but they utilize the same military and political means of waging war. The aspirations of neoliberal elites to form a new international legal order, where the International Criminal Court would have jurisdiction to prosecute political leaders for international crimes, are aimed at undermining the sovereign status of states and have not received widespread international recognition. Limiting a state’s sovereignty by recognizing the actions of its military and political leadership as an act of aggression requires consensus among the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, which typically occurs at the end of an armed conflict when confidence- and security-building measures are being developed.