The survival of international law is at stake in Ukraine

In the year since the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine began, much of the commentary has focused on the resolution of the Ukrainian state, the bravery of its people and the unity of Western support for both. These factors were massively underestimated by the Russian leadership a year ago, and alongside Russian mistakes do a great deal to explain the course of the war so far, and its likely prolonged nature.

But there are other features of the war that have wider implications. There is a danger that Western leaders talk up the global values at stake in the war but then fail to follow through on global actions in consequence. This would reinforce the perception of double standards that has hindered the attempts to build a global coalition against Putin’s war.

It is vital therefore that Western political leadership, which has emphasised the global stakes in the Ukrainian struggle, articulates and learns from the three issues that are central to the international politics of the war, and its eventual aftermath.

The first is that there has been real confusion about whether this is a fight for democracy or for the rule of law.  President Biden has emphasised the fight for democracy. So has President Zelensky. There is no doubt that Ukrainians are fighting for nationhood, sovereignty and democracy with inspiring bravery.

But for the rest of the world, it is the rule of law rather than democracy that is at issue. The international law and norms that the Russian war breached concerned the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states, not their political system.

This confusion, between Ukrainian aspirations and international interest, has dogged the attempt to build a united front in the face of the Russian war. There has been a united West but disunited rest.

At the UN countries representing over 50 per cent of the world’s population have refused to condemn the Russian aggression. One reason is that they perceive Western double standards about democracy and the rule of law.

So the lesson is clear: frame this war as a test case for adherence to the rule of law. This applies not just to the act of aggression itself, but also to the tactics that are being used. The impunity shown by Russian bombing of civilian areas documented to date is also contrary to international law, and demands accountability.

Second, the conflict has shown how connected the modern world is. Food price inflation in the 20 countries that the International Rescue Committee judges to be most at risk of humanitarian crisis this year has hit 40 per cent, more than double the level in advanced industrialised countries. The proximate cause is simple: the war. Somalia, for example, depends on Ukraine and the region for 90 per cent of its grain.

This toxic combination of conflict and the economic aftershocks of the war, alongside the climate crisis, has worked to push 340 million people to dependence on humanitarian aid. According to UN figures, tens of millions of people in East Africa do not know where their next meal is coming from. This is International Phase Classification for Food Insecurity level 3 or above. Level 5 is famine.

At the moment, only the US is responding with anything like the commitment that is needed. So far the Biden administration has donated over $2.4 billion to fight famine in East Africa over the past year. The EU, and the big winners from energy price hikes in the Middle East, have not shown anything like the same commitment.

This has led to accusations of hypocrisy from the Global South, and brings us to the third issue. The humanitarian response in Ukraine, including the treatment of refugees, has dwarfed the response elsewhere. It is vital that the response in Ukraine sets a new global standard, and does not become the exception.

In the weekend after the war, refugees from Ukraine in Europe were granted unprecedented protection, including residence permits up to three years, access to employment, welfare and housing. Despite a shifting legal landscape in Poland for Ukrainian refugees, only the response in Colombia, to Venezuelan refugees, and in Uganda, to South Sudanese refugees, meets this standard. For most of the millions of refugees and asylum seekers around the world, it is unimaginably far from their experience of poverty and destitution.

All the indicators are that the number of people forced to flee their homes will rise in the years ahead, with the World Bank estimating that more than 200 million will be forced to relocate by climate change by 2050. Europe’s response to the war in Ukraine shows us what is possible when the government, private sector and individual citizens band together to offer support. This is needed on a global scale.

And without such a response, the result will not just be humanitarian misery; it will be political instability too.

The war in Ukraine shows what happens when checks and balances on the abuse of power are destroyed. This is now what is at issue in international relations. A future where the law of the jungle rules, or one where the accountability of power curbs its excesses.