The Irrelevance of Russia's Constitution in the Context of Annexation

In the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, the discussions around territory and sovereignty have taken a critical turn. The question of whether Russia can indeed roll back its annexation, despite constitutional limitations, is a complex one. This article delves into the broader implications and the legal and political frameworks that shape the discourse.

Annexation and Sovereignty in International Law

At the heart of the matter is the issue of territorial integrity and sovereignty. In the modern age, international law places a strong emphasis on maintaining fixed borders and respecting the sovereign status of territories. However, the Russo-Ukrainian war has highlighted a significant challenge to this principle: the notion that taking a territory and holding onto it for an extended period can make it "yours."

According to the United Nations Charter, signatories are obligated not to use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Similarly, the Helsinki Final Act and various other international agreements, such as the Belovezha Agreement, reinforce the idea that borders in Europe should remain stable and intact. These documents provide a legal framework that Russia cannot simply ignore.

Constitutional Flaws and Legal Challenges

One of the central arguments used by critics of Russia's annexation is the inconsistency with the Russian Constitution. The Russian Constitution states that ratified international agreements have priority if they are in contradiction with local laws. However, the respective laws on amendments to the Russian Constitution claim that certain territories of Ukraine are now part of Russia, which directly conflicts with international law and agreements.

This contradiction highlights a fundamental flaw in Russia's legal framework. By attempting to align its constitution with the annexation of Ukrainian territory, Russia effectively undermines the validity of its own laws in the eyes of the international community. This legal inconsistency leaves Russia in a precarious position, with no clear pathway for retraction.

Political and Strategic Implications

The consequences of Russia's actions extend beyond legal challenges. International relations and diplomacy are deeply influenced by the actions of states. Attempting to roll back annexation without respect for international law and agreements could lead to further sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and military escalation.

Furthermore, telling Ukraine that the annexed territories are rightfully Russian would be politically and diplomatically insupportable. It would be absurd for any responsible leader to claim that territory can be annexed and held indefinitely, even if it is no longer possible to liberate it. This kind of stance would not be accepted by the international community and would likely result in increased conflict.

Conclusion

While Russia's constitution provides a legal framework for its actions, it is increasingly irrelevant in the context of international law and stability. The annexation of Ukrainian territory, as defined by international agreements and norms, is beyond the scope of Russia's domestic legal system. Any attempt to challenge this annexation must be done within the frameworks of international law and diplomatic cooperation.

The Russo-Ukrainian war has proven that taking territory is not the same as owning it. As long as any state continues to hold and control a territory, it must be prepared to defend its claim through diplomatic and, if necessary, military means. Rolling back an annexation requires not just legal justification but also a commitment to international law and the will to achieve it.