Can we really speak of a “third world war” in the eyes of international law?
For Olivier Corten, “there isn’t really a legal problem with having this opinion. There is no legal concept of world war, therefore from the moment Valery Zaluzhny considers, given the involvement of North Korea on one side and Western states on the other side which are substantially helping Ukraine, that this is a Third World War, it is its right. There are no legal issues. Whether it’s a world war or not a world war, nothing changes“, explains the professor at ULB.
Frédéric Dopagne goes in the same direction on a legal level: “That’s a bit of a thunderous statement. Legally, in international law, there is no Third World War, no international conflict beyond Ukraine and Russia, and also arguably beyond North Korea. To date, there has been no armed conflict between the United States and Europeans against Russia. That’s not the case.” Same story for the professor of international and European law Pierre d’Argent who believes, like Olivier Corten, that this declaration is “a gentleman’s opinion, but it doesn’t mean much“, having no legal significance.”It’s a bit of a scary statement and I think we’re going to do everything we can to prevent reality from reflecting this statement, that’s all.“, indicates Pierre d’Argent.
Deploy European troops in Ukraine, without NATO? “It would only be a tactical break for Vladimir Putin”
What are the criteria for asserting a “world war” situation?
“There is no particular criterion. What international law says is under what conditions can we start a war,” explains Olivier Corten. “The problem is rather political: how far do we want to go from the moment in particular when Russia is a nuclear power? Legally, there is no limit to the number of states involved and their involvement. The only condition is that it must always defend Ukraine […] Suppose we say that it is a world war, and then what difference would that make? Legally, the answer is: nothing. This is why there are no criteria“, he says.
Pierre d’Argent is in the same direction, affirming however that there is an element to determine a war: “In international law, there are no more declarations of war and things like that. The war criterion is a material criterion of armed conflict between the armed forces of two states.
For Frédéric Dopagne, this notion of armed conflict is not present today between the United States and the Europeans facing Russia. “The criterion for tipping into an armed conflict is not always entirely clear, it must be recognized. But finally, we have not crossed the threshold“, specifies the professor. “There would be military involvement from European states, if for example there were troops sent to the ground and taking part in hostilities. There would also be belligerence if Europeans, Americans, or others took part in aerial combat over Ukraine, particularly to establish a no-fly zone to protect Ukraine from attacks. Russian missiles. So yes, there would be sufficient military involvement to say that there is an armed conflict, but we are not at that point at all.“, he adds.
What if Donald Trump stops helping Ukraine? “This scenario is possible, but it is not inevitable”
What about the involvement of actors on the Russian side? All three experts agree that involvement from North Korea and Belarus is off-limits. Pyongyangcannot send its troops to help a war of aggression, Just as Belarus, from the very beginning, could not lend its territory for a war of aggression”, explains Olivier Corten. “From the beginning there were more than two states involved, because Belarus itself was involved in the aggression. Whether there is another state involved in the conflict, North Korea, remains legally problematic, not because it is or is not a world war, but because it is or is not a war of aggression.“, according to the professor.
Is the word of a former commander legitimate to assert this?
For Frédéric Dopagne, the legitimacy of Valeri Zaloujny to declare such remarks can be called into question: “He was fired, he is no longer in charge. It’s a more personal statement than anything else, but it still carries some weight. Valeri Zalouzhny knows the military situation, he was at the forefront when there was the invasion in 2022, but everyone knows that he does not represent the official position of Ukraine since he no longer has of responsibility“.
Former Ukrainian commander-in-chief Valerii Zaluzhny appointed ambassador to the United Kingdom
Is this a statement that will change the course of things?
“If I understand correctly, the desire was to make Westerners react to obtain more help to better prepare in anticipation of an escalation. I understood that he (Valeri Zaloujny, NdlR) had presidential ambitions in Ukraine, so perhaps there are ulterior political motives”, believes Frédéric Dopagne, stating: “This declaration, isolated, I don’t think it will change the situation. There are also thunderous declarations regularly from the Russian side with a lot of threats. We have to see the actions“.
Olivier Corten explains that these remarks can be seen as an appeal from Ukrainians to Westerners: “ It’s a statement, it’s a position. What he means by that I guess is ‘the conflict has already globalized anyway, so come and help us’. I can understand in Ukraine’s situation that this is what they want, it’s not illegal to want this. If we did so, we would not be violating the law. However, would we do something appropriate? It’s something else“.
On the question of the continuation of the conflict, Pierre d’Argent affirms that the Westerners have the deployment of troops in mind: “I think what they have in mind is to deploy the troops off the coast of Belarus. This is something that I think is being considered at the moment. I’m not in secrets, nor a soldier, but remembering Emmanuel Macron’s statements a few months ago and we told him ‘my God he’s crazy’, I think we’re reaching that point. Is this World War III? I don’t think so. I believe that Europeans will do everything they can to avoid direct confrontation with Russia.“
