René Värk "International law as a solid stronghold amid storms"

The academic lecture "International law as a solid stronghold amid storms" was delivered by René Värk, University of Tartu Associate Professor in International Law at the ceremony and concert dedicated to the anniversary of the Republic of Estonia on 20 February 2026.

International relations are undoubtedly going through a difficult period that also poses challenges for international law.

The legal order established after World War II has come under serious pressure, yet it is far too early to abandon it, as has been suggested by some politicians in the world in recent months. Despite its shortcomings, this legal order has served the international community for decades – 80 years – and supported global peace, stability, and cooperation. Principles such as sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the prohibition of the use of armed force have protected the interests of all and prevented the domination of power. A rules-based international order is a value in itself and, for small states, an existential necessity.

Indeed, recent years have rightly prompted the questions whether these principles have lost their authority; what a rules-based international order means; and whether power will once again replace law, as was the case in earlier history. The world is restless; there is so much violence. Armed conflicts are raging on almost every continent, and often, even the most basic rules of warfare are not observed in them. The International Committee of the Red Cross has counted more than 120 active armed conflicts currently worldwide. Most of us can probably name only a couple of them. In some countries, the use of armed force has become a means of implementing state policy, covered behind the veil of legal niceties. To avoid responsibility, they hide behind their position, immunity, or amnesty.

It is precisely in such turbulent times that international law is needed the most, to provide a firm cornerstone and a common language that ensures predictability and stability for the international community – the agreed rules that bring clarity, specify mutual rights and obligations, and help assess the conduct of the parties involved. International law must not be a selective ideal reserved for the good times, but a solid stronghold in the stormy ones.

Almost four years ago, Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. This is not a border dispute or a historical disagreement – it is unprovoked aggression, a classic war of conquest, which directly violates the core principles of the United Nations Charter. Let us recall: all states have undertaken the obligation to refrain from the use of armed force in international relations, including against the territorial integrity or political independence of another country, and they have likewise committed themselves to settling disputes by peaceful means. What makes the situation all the more grotesque is that Russia, a permanent member of the UN Security Council with a special responsibility to maintain international peace and security, is itself an aggressor.

In a schizophrenic manner, Russia has attempted to justify the aggression also with legal arguments, thus confirming the relevance of international law. The international community has rejected Russia’s attempts to portray its actions as collective self-defence, genocide prevention, the protection of its citizens abroad, and any other allegedly altruistic purpose. It is worth emphasising that, under international law, there is no difference whether astate formally declares war on another, or how it labels its actions. The now-notorious term used by Russia, “special military operation”, does not alter the fact that this is an unlawful use of armed force against Ukraine.

Four years of hostilities have resulted in significant loss of life and extensive material damage. We see day after day that Russia is deliberately and systematically violating the elementary rules of warfare. Attacks on civilians and civilian objects have, unfortunately, become routine. Ukrainian children are being deported to Russia, where they are re-educated as Russians and trained to be hostile towards the Ukrainian language and culture.

The situation in Gaza has also raised serious legal challenges. Questions concerning the definition of military targets, the assessment of proportionality, the protection of civilians, and the provision of humanitarian assistancelie at the heart of international humanitarian law – the rules of warfare. Even in the fiercest armed conflict, civilians must not be deliberately targeted. No person must be arbitrarily or indefinitely detained. Hospitals, schools, and places of worship are not military objectives. Starvation must never be used as a method of warfare. Neutral humanitarian organisations must be able to fulfil their role. Yes, Israel has the right to self-defence, but that does not justify any subsequent action. Just as individuals, states must also ensure that self-defence measures are necessary and proportionate, and aimed at repelling an attack.

The proverb “all is fair in love and war” is legally incorrect. International law restricts the choice of means and methods of warfare, connecting the use of violence with military necessity and preventing unnecessary harm to civilians and civilian objects. Humankind has reached a stage in its development where not everything is acceptable, even in armed conflict. We must not forget that both parties to a conflict must abide by the rules of war. Palestinians do not escape their obligations by invoking the right to self-determination or pointing to possible Israeli violations. All parties are assumed to behave with equal civility on the battlefield. Moreover, when assessing any hostile actions, it should be considered that persons or objects who start contributing to such actions lose their protection and become legitimate targets. This is the harsh legal reality.

The United States’ military operation in Venezuela also highlighted the central principles of international law and raised uncomfortable dilemmas. The political, economic, and social crisis in Venezuela had long prompted serious debates about human rights, sanctions, responsibility, and sovereignty. One may argue that Nicolás Maduro was not a legitimate head of state and that his regime lacked the people’s support, but does that mean other states may intervene in the change of power? May they unilaterally use armed force against a state’s territorial integrity and political independence to arrest the head of state, place someone more favourable in power, and present economic demands for their own benefit?

This is a slippery slope. Who, or what, is legitimate depends on who is assessing. In the view of the United States, Maduro was not legitimate, while in Russia’s view, Zelenskyy is not legitimate. International law has traditionally been ambivalent regarding a state’s choice of political regime. It is true that international law prefers democracy, yet it does not claim that democracy is the right one and that all the rest are wrong. This is partly because international law could not serve as a common language for a highly heterogeneous international community if it classified countries as right or wrong based on their political systems.

There have been examples in history of states intervening to support or replace a regime, but behind the façade of noble justifications, with self-interested motives. Even if a change of power appears noble in a particular situation, one must recognise that it sets a precedent that others may exploit for less noble purposes. For decades, Russia and, previously, the Soviet Union pointed at the Western world and declared, “You did it first, now we are doing it.” In this context, it is worth recalling history: what happened in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, Georgia, and Ukraine – in each case, regimes were changed in the name of good intentions.

It cannot be denied that international law is violated from time to time. But remember that this is not unique to international law, because any rules can be, and are, broken. However, a violation of a rule must not be misread as meaning that the rule is irrelevant. Nor does the violation of a rule mean the rule is invalid. On the contrary, we classify a particular behaviour as unlawful because a legal standard exists. When we condemn aggression, it is because aggression is defined and prohibited under international law. When we speak of war crimes and crimes against humanity, it is because they are defined and punishable under international law. International law provides us with the language to evaluate and, if necessary, condemn.

Let us imagine for a moment a world without international law. There would be no prohibition on the use of armed force. Borders would change through conquest. There would be no obligation to protect civilians. There would be no international courts or investigative mechanisms. There would be no common framework for demanding accountability for international crimes.

We would probably not want a world dominated by power. International law has helped us build precisely the kind of world that would not have such characteristics. Yes, international law does not eliminate all conflicts. It does not change human nature or erase geopolitical tensions. However, international law sets boundaries. It determines what is and what is not permissible. It provides mechanisms for the peaceful resolution of disputes. It gives smaller states protection and larger states legitimacy.

Countries are not indifferently watching the present situation; instead, they feel and express deep concern about the state of international law. For example, in January, the UN Security Council held two open events dedicated to international law. The relevance of the topic was confirmed by the fact that about half of UN members wished to speak, and the sessions ran much longer than planned. Respect for sovereignty, the preservation of territorial integrity, the prohibition on the use of armed force, and the need to ensure accountability were recurring themes in the speeches of many countries. And there was an air of concern.

Countries are also looking for new solutions to strengthen compliance with international law or address its gaps. Let us take Russia’s aggression against Ukraine as an example, where efforts are made to realise both individual and state responsibility and to strengthen international law.

The International Criminal Court is investigating war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Ukraine. To date, six arrest warrants have been issued, including one for President Vladimir Putin. It is also true, however, that, due to limitations in its jurisdiction, the International Criminal Court cannot deal with the crime of aggression. This is a specific category of crime in which a state’s political or military leadership is held responsible for planning, preparing, initiating, and executing an act of aggression. The crime of aggression is like a gateway that creates the conditions for committing all other international crimes. It opens the door to all kinds of atrocities, which is precisely why this category of crime must be addressed separately. States worked for more than two years to establish a special tribunal for the crime of aggression, and Estonia played an active role. The tribunal was formed last summer. It is noteworthy that, following the Tokyo and Nuremberg tribunals, this is the first special tribunal dealing specifically with the crime of aggression. It is significant because a just and lasting peace in Ukraine requires accountability for international crimes.

Russia’s aggression has caused enormous economic damage. We are speaking of hundreds of billions of euros. Under international law, Russia must compensate for this damage. Unfortunately, Russia shows no willingness to do so. Based on the resolution of the UN General Assembly, a group of like-minded states has begun establishing a compensation mechanism to register, assess, and compensate losses suffered by the Ukrainian state, businesses, and individuals. Ultimately, these costs must not be covered by other countries but by Russia, the aggressor. These are just a few examples of efforts to introduce new mechanisms and strengthen international law.

These processes may not bring peace immediately, but they send a clear message: such behaviour is unacceptable, and accountability will come sooner or later. Note that international crimes do not expire and may be prosecuted by any state.

International law has been tested by storms, but it has not collapsed. It has bent, but not broken. Every time a country justifies its actions with reference to international law, it implicitly recognises that the rules exist and that they matter. That is the strength of international law.

In the end, all countries, both large and small, need international law. Even the most powerful ones require a stable and predictable system. Today’s strength does not inevitably guarantee tomorrow’s security. Without jointly agreed-upon rules, uncertainty grows, the risk of miscalculation increases, and conflicts deepen. International law offers the architecture for peaceful coexistence.

If we want to preserve peace, security, and prosperity in the world, we must defend the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. We must insist on compliance with the rules of warfare. We have to apply international law consistently and without double standards to secure global support for our actions.

Storms can be fierce, conflicts can be bloody, and political tensions can run deep, yet without international law, the world would be even more dangerous. International law is not perfect, but it is indispensable.

This is why international law is a solid stronghold amid storms – not because it eliminates all crises, but because it provides a common foundation to build peace, justice, and stability.

I do not want to sound naive, but I am an optimist.

This speech reflects personal views and does not represent the position of any institution.