Background: The aims of international law are to uphold global peace, protect human rights, and hold states accountable if violations of international law occur. However, in practice, its implementation and effectiveness are not uniform due to the dynamics of international relations (IR). In Syria, it has been difficult for the global community to hold the regime accountable for human rights violations, largely due to its powerful allies like Russia. Similarly, the Ukrainian conflict raises serious questions about the efficiency of international law when dealing with Russia’s violations of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. This study aims to analyse the role of IR in shaping the application of international law in these two conflict zones, with a focus on how external support has enabled the aggressors to persist despite legal challenges. Methods: This research adopts a qualitative research methodology. It relies on desk-based research to collect data by using primary and secondary sources. Primary sources include treaties, UN resolutions, and international legal frameworks. These also include statements from significant actors involved in the Syrian and Ukrainian conflicts, providing insight into the legal frameworks governing international law. Secondary sources include academic articles, reports from international organisations, and expert analyses. This offers context on how international law has been applied or ignored in both cases. Through a comparative analytical approach, the study examines areas of similarity and difference in the implementation of international law in Syria and Ukraine. It highlights shared factors, such as powerful state actor involvement, which includes Russia, and the role of geopolitical interests in hindering effective legal enforcement. It simultaneously points out some differences, such as the international recognition of the Ukrainian government against the fragmented recognition of Syrian opposition groups, and how such differences have shaped responses to both crises. The research emphasises the roles of geopolitical interests and external state actors – Russia, China, and the Western powers – in shaping international responses. The study also examines the themes of sovereignty, humanitarian intervention, and the UN veto power. It highlights how IR impacts the enforcement of international law. Using the case of Ukraine and Syria, the research contributes toward an understanding of the intersection between international law and IR, particularly those challenges emanating from geopolitical interests. Results and Conclusion: The study concludes that international relations significantly shape the enforcement of international law in both Syria and Ukraine, albeit with distinct outcomes. In Syria, the survival of Assad’s regime is due to sustained military, economic, and political support from Russia, China, and Iran. These states have used their influence, particularly in the UN Security Council, to block foreign interventions. This demonstrates how geopolitical interests can paralyse international legal mechanisms. In Ukraine, a more unified international response has resulted in economic sanctions, military support, and legal actions against Russia. However, the geopolitical leverage of Russia, particularly in energy and military strength, has limited the effectiveness of these measures. Russia’s alliance with China further complicates efforts, as China has not clearly condemned or voted against Russia’s war against Ukraine in the UN Security Council. Moreover, China and other Russia’s allies have undermined sanctions by continuing trade and economic relations with Russia, weakening the collective impact of the international Western sanctions. The findings highlight that while international law is influenced by global politics, the degree and type of influence depend on the geopolitical stakes involved, revealing the vulnerability of the system when confronted by powerful states. It calls for reforms to strengthen international legal frameworks, ensuring they are not undermined by the geopolitical interests of key global actors.
Read full abstract
Jan 16, 2025
Wethaya Faijaidee + 2
Just Published
Open Access