Dangerous Precedents: How U.S. Policy Risks Undermining Global Security and NATO Stability

The U.S. Administration Undermines Post-War International Security and Risks a Major Conflict in Europe

The U.S. administration is contributing to the destruction of the international security system established after World War II and is setting a precedent for the outbreak of a large-scale military conflict in Europe. Washington is not resisting Russia’s demands to withdraw Ukraine’s Defense Forces from the Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions, most of which remain beyond Kremlin control.

The Trump administration appears to be reacting to Moscow’s arguments regarding the referendums held in the occupied territories. Although this issue seemed to have been legally addressed following the annexation of Crimea, it continues to pose similar risks for the Baltic States, where such a scenario remains possible.

The Russian referendums in Ukraine, particularly those held in regions like Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson in 2022, are considered illegal for several reasons:

1. Violation of International Law:
   • The referendums were conducted in areas that are internationally recognized as part of Ukraine. Annexing territory through a unilateral referendum under military occupation violates the United Nations Charter, which guarantees the sovereignty and territorial integrity of member states.
   • The UN General Assembly condemned the annexation as illegal, emphasizing that no territorial acquisition resulting from force is legally recognized.
2. Lack of Legitimacy and Transparency:
   • The referendums were organized under Russian military control, making free and fair voting impossible.
   • There were reports of coercion, intimidation, and ballot-stuffing. Independent international observers were not present to ensure a transparent process.
3. Violation of Ukrainian Law:
   • Ukraine’s constitution explicitly prohibits changes to its territory without a nationwide referendum. Any regional referendum held without Ukraine’s authorization is illegal under its domestic laws.
4. Occupied Territory Status:
   • Conducting referendums in occupied regions where civilians face military threats invalidates the notion of a free and fair vote. In such conditions, genuine democratic expression is impossible.
5. International Non-Recognition:
   • Most countries and international organizations, including the European Union, NATO, and the G7, rejected the results of these referendums. They declared that the referendums were a violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

In short, the referendums lack legal and moral legitimacy, being viewed as a political tool used by Russia to justify its annexation claims.

\

In international law, the role of precedent — often referred to as stare decisis in domestic legal systems — is more limited compared to its role in national legal systems like those of common law countries. However, precedent still holds significant influence in certain contexts. Here’s how it functions:

1. Influence in International Courts and Tribunals

• International courts and tribunals, such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ), International Criminal Court (ICC), and arbitration panels, often refer to past decisions for guidance. While not strictly binding, these decisions contribute to legal reasoning and ensure consistency in the application of international law.
• For example, the ICJ frequently cites its previous judgments to maintain coherence in its interpretations of international treaties and customary law.

2. Persuasive Authority

• Unlike in common law systems, international precedent does not have formal binding authority over future cases. However, decisions from respected courts carry significant persuasive weight. Other courts, arbitral tribunals, and legal scholars often cite these rulings as authoritative interpretations of international norms.

3. Customary International Law Development

• Precedents play a role in shaping customary international law, which arises from consistent state practice and a belief in its legal obligation (opinio juris). Repeated reference to judicial decisions can contribute to the establishment of legal norms.

4. Legal Certainty and Predictability

• Courts rely on precedent to ensure stability and predictability in international law. This is particularly important for dispute resolution, where consistency in rulings builds confidence in the legal system.

5. Limitations of Precedent

• International law remains primarily state-driven, meaning states may reject a precedent if they disagree with its interpretation or application. Additionally, each case is often treated on its merits due to the unique facts and circumstances involved.
• Some tribunals, particularly those dealing with human rights or trade law, may diverge from past decisions to adapt to evolving legal standards or societal changes.

While precedent in international law is not formally binding, it remains a powerful tool for shaping legal arguments, promoting legal certainty, and developing international legal norms. Courts and legal practitioners often treat it as a source of persuasive authority, contributing to the evolving body of international law.

Members of Trump’s administration have echoed Kremlin talking points. For instance, Steve Witkoff, a special envoy, reiterated Russia’s justification for annexing Ukrainian territories by emphasizing the regions’ Russian-speaking populations and the referendums conducted there. This alignment indicates a sympathetic stance towards Russia’s territorial claims.

Trump has previously praised Russian President Vladimir Putin’s strategic moves in Ukraine. In February 2022, he described Putin’s declaration of Ukrainian regions as independent following referendums as “genius” and “savvy,” suggesting an acceptance of these actions as legitimate expressions of local will.The Trump administration has shown a willingness to negotiate peace deals that may favor Russian interests, sometimes excluding Ukrainian input. This approach suggests a departure from previous U.S. policies aimed at isolating Russia over its invasion of Ukraine. Trump’s support for Russia’s territorial claims in Ukraine, justified through referendums, appears to stem from a combination of viewing these referendums as legitimate, aligning with pro-Russian narratives, criticizing Ukrainian leadership, and shifting U.S. foreign policy in a direction more accommodating to Russian interests.​ The United Nations General Assembly has rejected these actions as violations of international law. 

However, we believe that the White House administration is deliberately ignoring international law norms that conflict with its short-term political interests and the far-right sentiments present within the current President’s team.

By deferring the decision on territorial recognition to an illegal referendum held under the influence of an armed invasion on sovereign territory, a dangerous precedent is established. This precedent could be used not only for further territorial seizures by Russia but also by other countries with territorial claims, such as China.

Similar cases have already occurred, leading to further regional destabilization and the outbreak of large-scale conflicts. For example,

. Sudetenland (1938)

• Context: Nazi Germany used the pretext of protecting ethnic Germans in the Sudetenland region of Czechoslovakia to justify its annexation.
• Referendum: Although no formal referendum took place, staged demonstrations and manipulated public opinion were used to claim popular support for annexation.
• Outcome: The Munich Agreement allowed Germany to annex Sudetenland without Czechoslovakia’s consent. The annexation was later condemned as part of Nazi aggression.

3. Austria (Anschluss, 1938)

• Context: Nazi Germany annexed Austria in March 1938.
• Referendum: After the German occupation, a referendum was held to legitimize the annexation.
• Issues:
  • Conducted under duress with widespread intimidation.
  • No genuine opposition allowed.
  • Results showed a suspiciously high percentage in favor (over 99%).
• Outcome: The annexation was internationally condemned and later overturned after World War II.

4. The Baltics (1940)

• Context: The Soviet Union occupied Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
• Referendum: Soviet-controlled authorities held sham elections that led to requests for annexation into the USSR.
• Issues:
  • Elections were neither free nor fair.
  • Results were manipulated.
  • Voter intimidation and Soviet military presence.
• Outcome: The annexation was never recognized by most Western countries, and the Baltics regained independence in 1991.

5. Western Sahara (1975)

• Context: Following the withdrawal of Spain, Morocco annexed Western Sahara, claiming historical ties to the region.
• Referendum: A promised UN-supervised referendum on self-determination has been repeatedly delayed. Instead, Morocco held a controversial “Green March” with mass civilian movements to claim sovereignty.
• Issues:
  • Lack of free expression of the Sahrawi people’s will.
  • Ongoing dispute with the Polisario Front, advocating for independence.
• Outcome: The annexation remains a point of contention in international law, with the UN recognizing Western Sahara as a non-self-governing territory.

In these cases, referendums were used as a tool to justify annexations, often under military occupation or coercion. International law generally rejects the legitimacy of such votes, particularly when conducted without free and fair conditions, under foreign military presence, or in violation of a nation’s territorial integrity.

Thus, recognizing the legitimacy of territorial claims made under armed occupation, with a referendum organized by the aggressor and conducted under coercion, effectively legitimizes the crimes of the Nazi and Soviet regimes.This also creates a dangerous precedent that severely damages the image of the United States as a leader of the free world and a pillar of security in Europe and the Atlantic region.

In its pursuit of strengthening the U.S.’s peacekeeping image, the Trump administration is inadvertently laying the groundwork for the spread of conflicts in Europe. This carries the potential risk of U.S. involvement as a key NATO member.