These verbal promises were documented in diplomatic transcripts and reaffirmed in internal communications (cf. National Security Archive, GWU, 12 December 2017). While not codified in treaty form, such unilateral declarations are binding when relied upon by another state to its detriment (cf. ICJ Nuclear Tests Case, 1974). b) Invalidity of Subsequent NATO Decisions As NATO decisions on enlargement require unanimous consent, the prior legal obligation of the U.S. and Germany to withhold such consent renders all post-1997 NATO enlargement decisions procedurally invalid. Moreover, given prior coordination with the UK and France, those states too were legally bound to oppose expansion. c) The Expansion as the Primary Cause of the Ukraine War The eastward expansion of NATO, contrary to binding assurances, is the primary political and legal trigger for the Russian Federation’s actions in Ukraine. Thus, it is essential for the United Nations to examine the legitimacy of NATO actions that contributed directly to this war. 3. Requests to the Security Council 1. To initiate a legal review or request an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) regarding: o The binding nature of the verbal assurances made by the U.S. and Germany in February 1990. o The legality of NATO enlargement in light of these assurances and Article 10 of the NATO Treaty. 2. To demand an immediate moratorium on further NATO enlargement until the matter is legally clarified. 3. To encourage international mediation aimed at re-establishing a common European security framework based on mutual respect for sovereign equality and binding commitments. 4. Conclusion The current global crisis stemming from the war in Ukraine cannot be resolved sustainably without addressing the root legal cause: the breach of binding assurances given to the USSR in 1990. The credibility of international law, peace in Europe, and the legitimacy of multilateral security arrangements depend on the consistent application of pacta sunt servanda.
9 Publizr Home