Forcible Protection of Nationals Abroad: The Doctrine’s Hegemonic Use

Ioanna Pervou
{"title":"Forcible Protection of Nationals Abroad: The Doctrine’s Hegemonic Use","authors":"Ioanna Pervou","doi":"10.1007/s40802-024-00264-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>During the last few years Russia has repeatedly evoked the doctrine of the protection of nationals abroad in all cases when it has resorted to the use of force. Russia’s invocation of this doctrine has been harshly criticized, mainly because it has been deemed as a neo-hegemonic interpretation thereof. That is, several deprecating remarks over Russia’s policy have been made, given that it has treated the doctrine as a tool to achieve its neo-imperialistic goals, in essence repudiating all the legal developments that had taken place from 1945 onwards. The invasions of Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014 further resulting in Crimea’s illegal annexation, as well as the 2022 ongoing war against it, all relied more or less on the alleged danger to Russian nationals in the invaded areas. This paper will explore Russia’s invocation of the doctrine in the ongoing war against Ukraine. It will examine whether there are sufficient legal bases on these grounds, and it will demonstrate how Russia disregards the doctrine’s interpretation after the entry into force of the UN Charter promoting a hegemonic reading thereof. It will argue that the state’s policy shows the emergence of a new pattern regarding the forcible protection of its nationals abroad, which has endured for the last two decades. Finally, it will propose that continuity in such state practice is a constant threat to the former Soviet Union countries’ sovereignty, while it questions the very notion of their citizens’ nationality rights.</p>","PeriodicalId":43288,"journal":{"name":"Netherlands International Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Netherlands International Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-024-00264-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

During the last few years Russia has repeatedly evoked the doctrine of the protection of nationals abroad in all cases when it has resorted to the use of force. Russia’s invocation of this doctrine has been harshly criticized, mainly because it has been deemed as a neo-hegemonic interpretation thereof. That is, several deprecating remarks over Russia’s policy have been made, given that it has treated the doctrine as a tool to achieve its neo-imperialistic goals, in essence repudiating all the legal developments that had taken place from 1945 onwards. The invasions of Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014 further resulting in Crimea’s illegal annexation, as well as the 2022 ongoing war against it, all relied more or less on the alleged danger to Russian nationals in the invaded areas. This paper will explore Russia’s invocation of the doctrine in the ongoing war against Ukraine. It will examine whether there are sufficient legal bases on these grounds, and it will demonstrate how Russia disregards the doctrine’s interpretation after the entry into force of the UN Charter promoting a hegemonic reading thereof. It will argue that the state’s policy shows the emergence of a new pattern regarding the forcible protection of its nationals abroad, which has endured for the last two decades. Finally, it will propose that continuity in such state practice is a constant threat to the former Soviet Union countries’ sovereignty, while it questions the very notion of their citizens’ nationality rights.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
强行保护海外国民:该理论的霸权使用
在过去几年中,俄罗斯在诉诸武力的所有情况下都一再援引保护海外国民的理论。俄罗斯对这一理论的援引受到了严厉批评,主要是因为它被认为是对这一理论的新霸权主义解释。也就是说,有人对俄罗斯的政策提出了一些贬低性的评论,因为俄罗斯将该理论作为实现其新帝国主义目标的工具,实质上否定了自 1945 年以来的所有法律发展。2008 年入侵格鲁吉亚和 2014 年入侵乌克兰进一步导致克里米亚被非法吞并,以及 2022 年对克里米亚的持续战争,都或多或少地依赖于被入侵地区的俄罗斯国民所面临的所谓危险。本文将探讨俄罗斯在对乌克兰的持续战争中援引该理论的情况。本文将探讨这些理由是否有充分的法律依据,并将展示俄罗斯在《联合国宪章》生效后如何无视该理论的解释,推行霸权解读。报告将论证,俄罗斯的政策表明,在过去二十年中,俄罗斯在强行保护其海外侨民方面出现了新的模式。最后,它将提出,这种国家做法的连续性是对前苏联国家主权的持续威胁,同时也是对其公民国籍权概念本身的质疑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
11.10%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: The Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) is one of the world’s leading journals in the fields of public and private international law. It is published three times a year, and features peer-reviewed, innovative, and challenging articles, case notes, commentaries, book reviews and overviews of the latest legal developments in The Hague. The NILR was established in 1953 and has since become a valuable source of information for scholars, practitioners and anyone who wants to stay up-to-date of the most important developments in these fields. In the subscription to the Netherlands International Law Review the Netherlands Yearbook of International Law (NYIL) is included. The NILR is published by T.M.C. Asser Press, in cooperation with the T.M.C. Asser Instituut, and is distributed by Springer International Publishing. T.M.C. Asser Instituut, an inter-university institute for Private and Public International Law and European Law, was founded in 1965 by the law faculties of the Dutch universities. The Institute is responsible for the promotion of education and research in international law.
期刊最新文献
Environmental Intervention: An Activist Idea or a Legal Tool? An Analysis of the Possibilities of Environmental Protection in Light of the Principle of Non-Intervention Arianna Whelan, Reciprocity in Public International Law Forcible Protection of Nationals Abroad: The Doctrine’s Hegemonic Use The Ukrainian–Russian Armed Conflict and the Law of Neutrality: Continuity, Discontinuity, or Irrelevance? Self-Defence As Remedial Self-Determination: Continuity in Russian Narratives to Justify Imperialism and the Use of Force
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1