We as members of the democratic international community, have made commitments to uphold and protect the rights and freedoms of all individuals. Legally, states have bound themselves to international conventions that establish these duties in law. Yet our duty extends beyond our legal obligations, we have a moral duty. 
 

Future Precedent:

Democratic states share not only political systems but have a collective commitment to uphold justice, ensure accountability and protect human rights. When the democratic community fails to uphold these commitments or allows authoritarian regimes to violate them without consequences, a dangerous precedent is set. One where power can override the law. 

One fundamental purpose of international law is to deter states from engaging in unlawful and unconscionable conduct, by creating a mechanism to ensure accountability for violations. Failure to hold Russia accountable would therefore diminish the power of the law as a deterrence mechanism and weaken the power of the law against future violations.
 

Defend Self-determination:

By ‘re-educating’ Ukrainian children, Russia is attempting to remove their Ukrainian culture, language and political identity. This goes directly against the democratic principle of self-determination, taking away their right to determine their own “political status” by imposing on them a new identity.

If the international community fails to intervene, and Russia is able to commit acts to erase the national identity of a population without consequence; this weakens confidence in the international regulatory system to protect the global community. 

Defend Rule of Law:

A fundamental component of democracy is the rule of law, the principle that all individuals, including those in positions of power are ‘equal before the law’. Russia’s disregard for international humanitarian law, constitutes a direct assault on this principle.

By violating the Geneva Convention, Russia is rejecting the idea that international law holds authority over state power. Ultimately, a failure to respond would highlight the absence of power of the regulatory system over authoritarian leaders, sending a terrifying signal that future violations could face no consequences.

The ICC issuing arrest warrants however has “substantial symbolic weight…reinforcing that no individual is beyond the reach of international law”. Despite the obstacle of the immunity doctrine; the ICC is demonstrating that it is capable “holding even the most powerful accountable…a milestone for establishing a more accountable international order”.

Moral Duty:

Beyond the responsibility of states to uphold their legal duties or maintain the foundations of democracy, we have a profound moral obligation.

What about these children? 

Children should stand to be the most protected members of society. Yet how is it that the world has allowed 20,000 children to be separated from their families and become numbers in a system that takes away their home, their nationality and their language. Their parents unaware of where they are or their safety. 

How can we have governments justify cutting funding and withdrawing support to organisation that are actively working to locate and reunite these children with their families. This alongside with the confiscation and termination of data-sharing with international regulatory system such as the ICC brings into light this profound moral failure. 

If the international community have the legal instruments, resources, and funding to intervene, how can we justify inaction.