The Soviet Aggression against Lithuania in 1940: Ungrounded Attempts of ts Justification under International Law
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
The article deals with the most important international legal issues concerning the assessment of the 1940 Soviet aggression against Lithuania. The author exams and evaluates from the standpoint of international law the attempts to justify the Soviet acts which from time to time occur in Russian legal literature and statements of Russian officials. These attempts were concentrated in the 6 July 2000 official statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation concerning the beginning of deliberations by the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania of the draft Law on Compensation of the Damage Resulting from the Soviet Occupation.
In the article the main attention is given to the claim that international law of that time did not prohibit the acts had been committed against Lithuania because, allegedly, the already emerged prohibition of aggressive war had not yet included the prohibition to threat by force. According to that position, this principle established by the 1928 Paris Treaty on the Renunciation of a War as a Means of National Policy (the Briand-Kellogg Pact) should be interpreted in its most narrow meaning as including only the direct use of military force by one state against another. The author also exams the related claim that, allegedly, Lithuania’s consent with the incursion of Soviet troops could legalise the coercive actions taken by the Soviet Union against Lithuania.
The author raises strong arguments against and manifestly proves that such a way of legal interpretation is absolutely ungrounded. For instance, the author exams the norms of international law of that time and the relevant provisions of modern international law. The 1933 London Convention on the Definition of Aggression, as well as the bilateral Convention of the same content which was concluded in 1933 between Lithuania and the USSR, specifically pointed out that the definition of aggression had been elaborated in order to develop the principle of the prohibition of aggressive war (in the preamble of both treaties it was stressed that the Briand-Kellogg Pact prohibits any kind of aggression). Among the acts of aggression enumerated in Art.2 of the Lithuanian-Soviet treaty we can find the incursion of the armed forces into the territory of another State without a declaration of war. That is exactly the act committed by the USSR on 15 June 1940.
With regard to Lithuania’s consent with the Soviet acts, the author of the article points out that it is enough to recall that the Nuremberg Tribunal evaluated the identical case of the 1938 annexation of Austria as an act of aggression. In this regard it is worth to quote the 1946 Judgement of the Tribunal, whereat the alleged Austria’s consent and even desire to unite with Germany was regarded as “really immaterial for the facts plainly prove that the methods employed to achieve the object were those of an aggressor. The ultimate factor was the armed might of Germany ready to be used if any resistance was encountered”. Besides, in 1938 the Soviet Union itself treated the Anschluss as an international crime, as well as a year later it particularly condemned the cases where annexations were camouflaged by the setting up of puppet “national” governments. Thus, there are no reasons to treat differently the analogous case of Lithuania. The author of the article also reminds that in the still valid 1991 Lithuanian-Russian Treaty on Interstate Relations Russia itself expressed the position regarding Lithuania’s annexation as illegal.
To sum it up, the main conclusion of the article is that, even in accordance with the rules of international law valid in 1940, the acts committed by the Soviet Union should be qualified as an aggression against Lithuania. Meanwhile, Lithuania’s consent with these acts should be treated as void as it had not been free, i.e. Lithuania had been compelled to express such a consent.
In the article the main attention is given to the claim that international law of that time did not prohibit the acts had been committed against Lithuania because, allegedly, the already emerged prohibition of aggressive war had not yet included the prohibition to threat by force. According to that position, this principle established by the 1928 Paris Treaty on the Renunciation of a War as a Means of National Policy (the Briand-Kellogg Pact) should be interpreted in its most narrow meaning as including only the direct use of military force by one state against another. The author also exams the related claim that, allegedly, Lithuania’s consent with the incursion of Soviet troops could legalise the coercive actions taken by the Soviet Union against Lithuania.
The author raises strong arguments against and manifestly proves that such a way of legal interpretation is absolutely ungrounded. For instance, the author exams the norms of international law of that time and the relevant provisions of modern international law. The 1933 London Convention on the Definition of Aggression, as well as the bilateral Convention of the same content which was concluded in 1933 between Lithuania and the USSR, specifically pointed out that the definition of aggression had been elaborated in order to develop the principle of the prohibition of aggressive war (in the preamble of both treaties it was stressed that the Briand-Kellogg Pact prohibits any kind of aggression). Among the acts of aggression enumerated in Art.2 of the Lithuanian-Soviet treaty we can find the incursion of the armed forces into the territory of another State without a declaration of war. That is exactly the act committed by the USSR on 15 June 1940.
With regard to Lithuania’s consent with the Soviet acts, the author of the article points out that it is enough to recall that the Nuremberg Tribunal evaluated the identical case of the 1938 annexation of Austria as an act of aggression. In this regard it is worth to quote the 1946 Judgement of the Tribunal, whereat the alleged Austria’s consent and even desire to unite with Germany was regarded as “really immaterial for the facts plainly prove that the methods employed to achieve the object were those of an aggressor. The ultimate factor was the armed might of Germany ready to be used if any resistance was encountered”. Besides, in 1938 the Soviet Union itself treated the Anschluss as an international crime, as well as a year later it particularly condemned the cases where annexations were camouflaged by the setting up of puppet “national” governments. Thus, there are no reasons to treat differently the analogous case of Lithuania. The author of the article also reminds that in the still valid 1991 Lithuanian-Russian Treaty on Interstate Relations Russia itself expressed the position regarding Lithuania’s annexation as illegal.
To sum it up, the main conclusion of the article is that, even in accordance with the rules of international law valid in 1940, the acts committed by the Soviet Union should be qualified as an aggression against Lithuania. Meanwhile, Lithuania’s consent with these acts should be treated as void as it had not been free, i.e. Lithuania had been compelled to express such a consent.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Section
Articles
Authors contributing to Jurisprudence agree to publish their articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public (CC BY-NC-ND) License, allowing third parties to share their work (copy, distribute, transmit) and to adapt it, under the condition that the authors are given credit, and that in the event of reuse or distribution, the terms of this licence are made clear.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
