Defense expert on Norwegian arms to Ukraine:

International law could allow Russia to use force to stop Western arms supplies to Ukraine. This is what Camilla Goldal Cooper, one of the country’s leading experts on issues of international law in war, told VG.

After the invasion of Ukraine, the United States and a number of European countries sent large quantities of weapons and equipment to Ukraine.

Norway sent 2,000 Norwegian-produced anti-tank missiles, and also allowed other allies to contribute arms and ammunition produced in Norway.

This means that Norwegian arms transfers give Russia the opportunity to implement countermeasures, without violating international law, she said.

International law allows Russia to argue that such arms shipments pose a direct threat to Russia, and that they can eventually be stopped by the use of military force. But the conditions do not appear to be met here. In addition, state practice shows that arms transfers are not usually considered an attack.

Can Norwegian arms transfers become bomb targets without Russia violating international law?

No, because military attacks are a last resort. Under international law, these types of shipments must primarily be stopped by less intrusive means, such as forcing an aircraft to land and carrying a weapon. The challenge may be that the transfer gives Russia an argument to respond to.

She is an Associate Professor of Operational Law at the Staff College of the Norwegian Defense College and has worked on international law issues in armed conflict since 2008.

Goldal Cooper emphasizes that Norway’s decision to send weapons to Ukraine does not mean that Norway is a party to an armed conflict, but that we have taken sides.

I do not agree that we are fellow warriors, as some have claimed. But we’re not neutral anymore, so we’ve broken old rules and expectations of neutrality, says Goldal Cooper.

According to Cooper, the rules of the UN Charter for the use of force against another country are very limited.

It requires a Security Council resolution, which has not been achieved in the Ukraine conflict, or that the use of force must be rooted in the need for self-defense. But to the extent that the state considers there to be a direct threat, as it considers that there are no other ways to deal with it, the defense of the use of force, as a last resort, is a narrow exception.

According to Cooper, the UN Charter states that such a threat must be addressed through peaceful, economic and diplomatic means, and that force can only be used as a last resort to stop the threat.

It’s a small chance, but it does exist.

Goldal Cooper argues that in the absence of international agreements and court decisions, interpretations of existing international law prepared by internationally recognized experts should be used as a basis.

– This principle was endorsed by the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

It says that it is the so-called Guide to Air and Missile Warfare, the San Remo Manual of the Law of the Sea, and the Tallinn Manual of Cyber ​​Operations that says something about the consequences of violating the rules of neutrality and general rules from there relevant to the rule regarding the war between Russia and Ukraine.

This expert evidence suggests that violations of neutrality can in some cases justify the use of force in self-defense, if all peaceful means are tried, Cooper says.

– The United States used the principle of self-defense in the war against Al-Qaeda and during the war in Afghanistan. Iraq also used it in the fight against ISIS.

But can Russia claim that the West’s weapons are a threat to Russia now that Russian forces have invaded and are on foreign soil in Ukraine?

– In cases where the conditions for self-defense are met, the attack may also have taken place on the interests of the state abroad. For example, the United States was
Ready for any attack on American soldiers and interests, no matter where in the world they are, it should be considered an attack on the United States.

Professor Knut Einar Skodvin at the University of Bergen Law School is an expert in international law. He says these are tough legal issues around which there is plenty of room for interpretation.

It can be argued that the Russians have the right under international law to intervene by force to stop arms shipments to Ukraine, but I do not like this explanation. It will open up to create larger areas of conflict.

Skodvin says there is no general right in international law to intervene against arms shipments from third countries that are intended to be used in an armed conflict.

– If someone has the right to attack, in this case it will only be the place where the weapons are. The explanation is an extension of the fact that if Poland had allowed Ukraine to operate these planes from Polish airports, Russia could have attacked that very airport.

According to Skodvin, there are clear rules for boat transportation.

If weapons intended for use in a conflict with a ship are transported, the weapons and the ship may be confiscated. He says the rules are not clear for countries.

The professor stresses that the starting point here is that Russia is exercising power illegally.

– It spreads to everything they do. So, even if, according to the rules of what should be a target, they should be inside, this does not cancel the impending; Russia is committing a crime of aggression and all the force it is now exercising is illegal.