Lauri Mälksoo: why international law is particularly important for small states right now

International law professor Lauri Mälksoo argues that although major powers violate international law, it is paradoxically particularly important for small states right now. Ukraine has initiated multiple legal proceedings against Russia in international courts since Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea. The use of so-called lawfare has become an important tool on the international stage for protecting interests.

International law professor Lauri Mälksoo presents a thought-provoking paradox: the more major powers violate or bend international law, the more important it becomes precisely for weaker and smaller states.

The sceptic's question

A sceptic might ask whether, in a turbulent world where major powers violate or interpret international law in their own interests anyway, there is any point in paying attention to it. Mälksoo's answer: quite the opposite. It is precisely in such a situation that international law becomes particularly valuable for small states. As tensions grow, international law frameworks are increasingly used to assert positions and influence the opposing side.

Lawfare as a new weapon

In recent years, the term lawfare, the use of law as a strategic weapon (analogous to warfare), has become widespread in international politics. Since Russia's occupation and annexation of Crimea in 2014, Ukraine has initiated multiple legal proceedings against Russia in international courts.

These proceedings are costly and often yield only partial results. For example, on 31 January 2024, the UN International Court of Justice ruled in the dispute between Ukraine and Russia and dismissed most of Ukraine's allegations under the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Nevertheless, the court found that the significant curtailment of Ukrainian-language education in Crimea violated the convention's requirements, a partial, but still noteworthy, victory.

Crimea dispute continues

On 15 June this year, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague released its decision in a dispute relating to Crimea, which concerned coastal state rights. Russia interpreted this decision as a relative victory for itself. Mälksoo emphasizes that the jurisdiction of international courts is strictly limited; most often it is not possible to present a core question in the style of "to whom does Crimea belong?"

Such limitations do not mean that court proceedings are pointless, however. They help create international legal history and precedents that may prove to be important protection mechanisms for small states in the future.