The concept of “aggressor country” appeared in the international legal field after the end of World War II. When it became obvious that the war was nearing completion, representatives of the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition joined in the work to create a union and legal support in order to prevent the appearance of such an aggressor somewhere in the world. However, despite conventions and international law, armed clashes continue in the world, including with the participation of major powers such as the United States.
Security basics
The Second World War ended in September with the surrender of Japan, and on October 24, 1945 at a conference in San Francisco, the charter of the United Nations was approved, which was signed by representatives of fifty states. The document, in particular, prescribed the powers of the Security Council. The Security Council, upon detection of a threat, makes recommendations or independently makes decisions on its elimination and restoration of security. It was in the UN charter documents that the full definition of the term “aggressor country” first appeared: what it is, what are its main features.
Main Charter
In determining aggression, the document focuses on armed encroachment on sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence. Moreover, the UN response does not depend on whether the attacked state is a member of the organization or not. The Charter also details the actions of states that can be regarded as aggressive. Acts of aggression include any force invasions, attacks, as well as the consequences of these actions in the form of occupation or annexation. In addition, in the list of such acts, the use of any weapon, blockade with the help of weapons, as well as the sending of mercenaries to the territory of which can be regarded as acts of aggression.
Legal grounds
The UN Charter also stipulates that aggression in no way can be justified. In particular, it is pointed out that political, economic, military and other considerations cannot justify the aggressive actions of one country in relation to another. Since such behavior is regarded as criminal, the aggressor country is regarded as a criminal in international law. Accordingly, the commission of such a crime entails liability. It is also specified that any acquisitions received as a result of aggression cannot be recognized by the world community and receive legal status.
Peace Block
According to many world political scientists, decisions on the arrangement of the international world order were made with the participation of America. This can hardly be an absolute statement, but the fact that the UN Charter was drafted and adopted in one of the American cities makes us look at this issue more closely. For military opposition to any aggression, the Military-Political Bloc of the North Atlantic Alliance, better known as NATO, was created in 1949. The block includes 28 states: a larger number of countries in Europe, the USA and Canada. Headquarters - in Brussels (Belgium). As of 2010, the combined army numbered about 3.8 million people.
The alliance, created primarily to fight the USSR and repel its attacks, after the disappearance of the Soviet Union switched to a new enemy, whose name is terrorism. It was under the auspices of the fight against terrorism that NATO countries fought in Afghanistan, Yugoslavia and Libya. The overthrow of the regimes in these states at the instigation of Washington was portrayed as the liberation of the people living there from the tyranny of militants and the buildup of democratic values in these territories that could only be achieved through a bloody path.
Meanwhile, no matter what slogans were sung in the world community, the majority understood that NATO was acting in the interests of a superpower, namely the United States. However, having one of the most powerful armies, the "star-striped" ones themselves successfully managed to "escalate" democracy in different parts of the world.
US as the main global aggressor
The term "aggressor country" in the sense that was originally laid down in the UN postulates is clearly discredited. Although, from a legal point of view, a full ceremonial may have been performed for America to appear as a strong pillar of world order, rushing to the rescue with the slightest violation of human rights, nevertheless, at the end of the last century, the formula: “USA is an aggressor country” was firmly strengthened..
Today, in many opinion polls, most respondents call the Americans the absolute leaders in terms of international aggression. Sociologists blame the media for this, which emphasize the US “crusades” in the Balkans, the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa. At the same time, the countries that can actually destroy the world, of the order of five to six, are states that have nuclear weapons in their arsenal.
The necessary counterweight
Political scientists, seeing the results of opinion polls, tend to look at this situation somewhat differently. In their opinion, it is easy to imagine what will happen to the world if there is no such leadership - obvious and unconditional. In this case, in the absence of the obvious hegemony of a superpower a hundred times, local conflicts and the struggle for leadership intensify.
This leads to greater instability in the world, the result of which in one way or another is a major unifying conflict and a new redistribution of the world order. In this sense, in the system of checks and balances in which the world lives, the leadership of one state guarantees the security of most of the world population.
Crimea and the Ukrainian crisis
At the end of 2013, a severe political crisis began to unfold in Ukraine. Protesters marched on the Maidan, demanding the resignation of the current government. An unexpected consequence of these events was the accession of Crimea and Sevastopol to the Russian Federation in March 2014. In February, Russian-speaking residents of Crimea took to the streets to protest against those who came to power in Kiev as a result of a coup of Euromaidan supporters. The power that changed in the republic declared the new leadership of Ukraine illegitimate and asked for help from Russia. Then, for the first time, an accusation was thrown from the whole Western Hemisphere that Russia is an aggressor country. The Kremlin was accused of annexing Crimea, implying the forcible incorporation of the territory into Russia, which, according to international law, entails liability.
In order to comply with international requirements, a referendum was held in Crimea, which was officially designated as illegitimate in most countries of the European Union and the United States. Ukraine also does not recognize the actions of the Russian leadership and since April 2014 has positioned Crimea as an occupied territory. In addition, the UN General Assembly at the end of March adopted a resolution according to which a referendum in Crimea is considered illegal. An absolute majority voted for the document.
At the end of January of this year, the Ukrainian leadership officially recognized Russia as an aggressor country in relation to its southeastern territories.
Sanctions as manipulations
Russia's actions became the reason for organizing international isolation. The initiator was the United States, which pushed its position with a threat of potential economic damage, as a result, the EU also introduced economic and political sanctions. They were joined by partners in the G7 and others. The sanctions included several calls. The first package determined the freezing of assets and the restriction of entry to those individuals whom the West considers close to President Vladimir Putin. Among these were, in particular, businessmen brothers Arkady and Boris Rotenberg. Foreign companies in different countries began to gradually curtail cooperation with Russia in many areas of activity. The status “Russia is an aggressor country” frightened many; nobody was ready to lose a partner in the person of Washington.
Russian interpretation of aggression
In the realities of sanctions and counter-sanctions, the term “aggressor country” has acquired a completely new meaning. The bill introducing new realities into the legal field of Russia was proposed by deputies from United Russia Anton Romanov and Evgeny Fedorov. The latter is also the coordinator of the organization "National Liberation Movement" together with Sergey Katasonov, a member of the LDPR faction. The document was submitted to the government for consideration in December 2014. In the explanation of the bill, its authors argued the need for such a law by the aggressive and non-partner behavior of states that impose sanctions against Russia and its citizens, as well as legal entities.
It was assumed that the Russian government would be empowered to determine the register of states to which this term may apply to protect the foundations of the constitutional order. The need for the bill was also determined by ensuring national security, developing the national economy and protecting it. Among the main goals that the law pursues is to level out the presence of foreign companies in the Russian consulting business.
In particular, firms providing consulting services in the field of audit, law and other things, the homeland of which is the aggressor country, will be prohibited from carrying out their activities in Russia. In addition, the ban should also apply to Russian companies affiliated with foreign companies. According to the authors of the bill, the consulting services market is a monopoly of foreign firms. According to them, 70% of the market, whose turnover in 2013 exceeded 90 billion rubles, belongs to such large players as the British Ernst & Young or the American Deloitte. The developers of the bill note that in the current international situation this can cause serious damage to economic security, since the audit of most Russian strategic enterprises is carried out by foreign companies.
