File(s) under permanent embargo
The Bear and the Dragon Pragmatism and State-centric International Law in the un Security Council
Abstract
Within the ideological confines of Western liberal democracies, two ‘truths’ are held to be self-evident: that Russia and China are opportunistic in their behaviour, and that this behaviour is strategic rather than sincere. This article is a short, empirical analysis of the justifications of Russia and China when determining a ‘threat to the peace’ in accordance with Article 39 of the Charter of the United Nations. Examining how Russia and China have justified their decisions where this concept was significantly under debate, I find that their behaviour is not as opportunistic as believed. Rather, it is consistent with ideals of pragmatism and state-centric interpretations of international law. I further suggest that the consistency of their approaches means it is of little consequence if their arguments are strategic in nature.
Within the ideological confines of Western liberal democracies, two ‘truths’ are held to be self-evident: that Russia and China are opportunistic in their behaviour, and that this behaviour is strategic rather than sincere. This article is a short, empirical analysis of the justifications of Russia and China when determining a ‘threat to the peace’ in accordance with Article 39 of the Charter of the United Nations. Examining how Russia and China have justified their decisions where this concept was significantly under debate, I find that their behaviour is not as opportunistic as believed. Rather, it is consistent with ideals of pragmatism and state-centric interpretations of international law. I further suggest that the consistency of their approaches means it is of little consequence if their arguments are strategic in nature.
