bitcoin mining legal featured image

Is Bitcoin Mining Legal?

Legal AssistantAdministrative Law, Business Law, Regulatory Law

The digital asset industry in the United States has grown into a trillion-dollar market. Legislators have now realized that crypto isn’t going anywhere any time soon, and some form of regulatory oversight is required to protect investors from unscrupulous practices.

In March 2022, President Biden issued an executive order. He directed relevant federal agencies to consolidate their efforts and come up with draft crypto regulations aimed at, among many things, preventing the illicit use of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

Is Bitcoin mining legal, and how does it work? This guide explores everything you need to know.

Bitcoin Mining for Dummies

Right off the bat: What is bitcoin mining? The term “mining,” as used in the cryptocurrency world, refers to the creation of a new cryptocurrency. Specialized computers are used to solve complex mathematical problems involved in validating transactions.

Upon completion, a new Bitcoin is generated and added to a public ledger known as a blockchain. The idea behind Bitcoin mining is to help secure the blockchain and curb any potential double-spending.

This public ledger known as the blockchain is a series of blocks, each consisting of a specific amount of Bitcoin. Bitcoin can only be accessed once the solution to a complex mathematical equation is found. Once a specific block is unlocked, it is published on the blockchain that can be viewed publicly. This entire process is what is referred to as “mining.”

Mined cryptocurrency uses a consensus model known as proof of work. This system verifies miners and protects the network from cyberattacks. Bitcoin, Litecoin, Ethereum, Dogecoin, and Monerio are just some of the cryptocurrencies that rely on mining to generate new coins.

Mining Rigs

A mining rig is a unit used to do the actual mining. Rigs vary in size, performance, scale, price, and efficiency. Miners also consider things like energy consumption, hash rate, and adaptability when choosing a rig to mine Bitcoin.

A little over a decade ago, when cryptocurrency mining was still a fairly new concept, Bitcoin mining started on central processing unit (CPU) rigs. Today, Bitcoin and other major crypto assets rely on upgraded rigs capable of achieving higher kilohash-per-second rates.

Graphic processing unit (GPU) rigs were an upgrade from CPU rigs. Unlike CPU rigs that could reach speeds of 8-20 kilohashes per second, GPU rigs could achieve 10-60 megahashes per second. For miners, this development was nothing short of impressive.

2012 saw the launch of the application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) rig. Unlike its predecessors, this rig was specifically created for mining and could achieve speeds of 90-100 terahashes per second. ASIC rigs are widely used to mine Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, and Litecoin. It’s important to note that not all cryptocurrencies can be mined with ASIC rigs. Monero and Ravencoin are two examples of ASIC-resistant cryptocurrencies.

The fastest and most affordable way for most people to get into Bitcoin mining is through cloud mining. Mining is outsourced to an intermediary, and you would be an indirect participant in the whole process. The other option would be to join a mining pool, where several miners combine their individual computing resources to scale up their mining capabilities.

How Bitcoin Mining Works

Bitcoin mining involves solving a hash. A hash is a complex mathematical equation made up of a series of random digits and characters.

The end-to-end mining process has several components to it, including miners, nodes, hashes, transactions, nonces, blocks, consensus protocols, and the blockchain. To mine Bitcoin, a block is validated by solving a complex mathematical problem, which then reveals its underlying hash functions. There are four main steps involved in mining Bitcoin:

  1. Get the mining hardware
  2. Open a crypto wallet account
  3. Join a decentralized mining pool
  4. Set up mining software to link all components together

The mining process starts from the nodes when a transaction is initiated. A node is a device or individual within the blockchain whose function is to verify that the initiated transaction is legitimate. This transaction is then consolidated with several other transactions to form a new block that will need to be validated.

Once the block achieves the required number of transactions, the hash of the previous data, the block’s header data, and a new hash is added. Generating a new hash involves linking the previous block’s header data with a nonce. Nonces are values that can only be used once.

The miner’s job begins at the point a new block is created. Miners compete to be the first to validate the block by solving the hash. The one who does it first receives Bitcoin as the reward. Before the crypto can be credited into the miner’s crypto wallet, they must first publish the block on the blockchain as proof of work.

Nodes update the blockchain periodically. It is encrypted using public-key cryptography.

Why Does Bitcoin Use So Much Energy

In theory, Bitcoin shouldn’t need an enormous amount of electricity. After all, buying and selling Bitcoin is as simple as a quick tap on your smartphone or click on your PC. This has been the standard procedure for other digital transactions from time immemorial, so why should Bitcoin be any different?

Bitcoin’s decentralized structure is what drives its huge carbon footprint. Here’s how.

Every time there’s a new transaction that needs to be verified, computers need to solve complex mathematical problems. Before the block can be added to the blockchain, the proof-of-work consensus system kicks in for nodes to verify the transaction. What many people don’t realize is how energy-intensive this mechanism is.

In the case of Bitcoin, proof of work involves having several different nodes racing to see how quickly they can analyze these transactions, package them, and solve a mathematical problem. In its early days, this verification and validation process didn’t consume nearly as much electricity as it does today – nowhere near the nation-state scale we see today.

However, Bitcoin’s technology is set up to make the math puzzles harder to solve as more individuals compete to solve them. The net effect of this is that you now have hundreds of thousands of computers all competing to find a solution to the same problem.

In the end, there can only be one winner that receives the Bitcoin honorarium. The rest of the computers that were in competition with each other will have just wasted their computing resources and yielded no result.

While the result generated is fair, accurate, and secure, it does create a massive amount of carbon emissions. Each transaction takes upwards of 10 minutes to validate, which is also the time it takes to mine a new block. Other digital transactions, such as those for Visa, are much faster and use far less energy in comparison to Bitcoin transactions.

Is Bitcoin Mining Legal in the US

The US and most jurisdictions across the world have not yet enacted laws regulating cryptocurrencies. For this reason, the legality of Bitcoin and other crypto-assets remains unclear.

According to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), cryptocurrency miners are classified as money transmitters. As a result, individuals engaged in crypto-related activities are subject to the rules and regulations governing money transmission.

While there’s still a lot of regulatory uncertainty in the US concerning cryptocurrency, Bitcoin mining is considered legal if it’s done within the confines of existing statutes. Here’s what that means.

Illegal vs. Legal Bitcoin Mining: What’s the Difference

close up of person using coinbase app on smartphone

Bitcoin mining is considered legal if you use any of the two methods described below to do it:

1. Private Bitcoin Mining

The core of every Bitcoin mining endeavor is an eWallet. This is where you store mined cryptocurrencies. You also need to install a special program that can execute hash functions. If you already have a PC, the process is pretty straightforward. As mentioned before, it is possible to mine Bitcoin using a standard computer.

That said, it would make more sense to install ASIC chips which are specially developed to mine crypto. The downside to this is that this mining method isn’t as profitable as Bitcoin mining through the cloud, given how energy-demanding it is.

2. Cloud-Based Bitcoin Mining

This mining method involves renting hash services from cloud mining providers. In most cases, these firms operate large-scale mining farms. Users can get into contracts to mine several different cryptocurrencies, depending on what they offer. The fees charged are independent of the current market value of the crypto asset.

Illegal Bitcoin Mining

Bitcoin mining is illegal if you use a botnet to mine crypto assets. The term “botnet” is short for “robot network.” It involves connecting as many computers as possible to a single network, infecting them with malware, and having them mine Bitcoin. The resulting crypto assets are then credited into the criminals’ eWallets.

The victims are often unaware that their computers have been infected with malware, let alone being used to mine Bitcoin. Here’s how cybercriminals can gain access to your device:

1. JavaScript Commands

The most widespread illegal crypto mining method relies on programs that run on JavaScript. They are easy to install on web pages, and most browsers can easily download them.

Coin Hive is a notorious JavaScript-based mining program and has become the go-to for many cybercriminals. It takes on an extremely perfidious approach when Coin-Hive-infected sites force visitors’ computers to mine cryptocurrencies without users’ knowledge or consent. In most cases, the program uses the full CPU power of the visitors’ devices for the duration they’re on the website.

2. Crypto Mining Malware

Crypto mining malware is a type of malicious software specifically designed to mine Bitcoin and other forms of cryptocurrency. Cybercriminals have devised a number of different ways to smuggle it into their victims’ computers, with some of the most common methods being through infected websites and pirated software.

Mining malware typically uses about 66 percent of the computer’s CPU resources and runs discreetly in the background leaving the owner none the wiser. It bundles the device’s computing power to a botnet that can host thousands of computers. Some of these programs are even designed to bypass some antivirus programs, making them undetectable to the average user.

Countries Where Mining Bitcoin Is Illegal

Below is a list of countries where Bitcoin mining is either illegal or restricted:

  • Algeria
  • Bolivia
  • Columbia
  • China
  • Egypt
  • Iraq
  • Iran
  • Indonesia
  • India
  • Kosovo
  • North Macedonia
  • Nepal
  • Russia
  • Turkey
  • Vietnam

Bitcoin Mining Scams

According to the Federal Trade Commission, nearly 7,000 people lose more than $80 million worth of assets in crypto-related scams every year. The most common Bitcoin mining scam is one where dubious cloud mining platforms market to investors and retail crypto buyers by enticing them to put down capital upfront in exchange for a continuous stream of higher-than-average computing power and lucrative rewards in the process.

The catch is that these platforms don’t use anywhere near the hash rate they market to unsuspecting investors. What’s more, once victims make the down payment, they don’t deliver the promised rewards.

Keep in mind that cloud mining in itself is perfectly legal. However, you need to do your due diligence before investing in a particular platform.

An article in ABC Everyday reported the story of a man identified as Jonathan who came across an ad on Instagram that promised a 50% return mining Bitcoin. He clicked on the link, which directed him to the website where he sent $50. A month later, he received his initial $50 investment and an additional $30 in profit.

He went on to send hundreds of dollars which eventually turned into thousands. He began to spread the word to his friends and family, who got in on the action and cumulatively sent the scammer $20,000. Jonathan recounts that it was the last time he heard from the thief. Not only did he lose a significant amount of money, but many of his friends cut him out of their lives.

Protect Yourself

Given the almost non-existent regulatory framework for crypto transactions at both state and federal levels, it is often difficult to hold criminal violators liable for illegal practices. If you’re currently grappling with a crypto-related legal issue, chat online with an experienced Laws101 attorney and find out what your next steps will be.

roe v wade is overturned featured image

What Happens if Roe v Wade Is Overturned?

Legal AssistantConstitutional Law

Roe v. Wade 1973 is a controversial lawsuit that led the Supreme Court to make a landmark ruling on abortion rights in the country. It began when Norma McCorvey, an anonymous plaintiff who went by the pseudonym Jane Roe, filed a suit to challenge state and federal laws prohibiting abortion.

What is Roe v Wade, and what happens if the 1973 Supreme Court ruling is overturned? Here’s everything you need to know.

Roe v Wade Summary

In 1969, at the age of 22, McCorvey, who was unmarried and five months pregnant at the time, sought an abortion in Texas. The procedure was banned in the state except when it was deemed necessary to save the mother’s life.

After several unsuccessful attempts to procure an illegal abortion, McCorvey reached out to two newly-graduated lawyers – Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington – to bring a lawsuit on her behalf. She argued that Texas law denied her constitutional right to safe abortion. She further argued that her right to privacy had been violated under the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 14th Amendments.

She adopted the pseudonym Jane Roe in a bid to preserve her anonymity and named Henry Wade as the defendant in her suit. Wade was the Dallas County District Attorney at the time.

A US District Court in Texas ruled in her favor. Texas appealed this decision to the US Supreme Court shortly after the ruling was made.

1973 Supreme Court Landmark Ruling

In a 7-2 majority ruling, the Supreme Court found that Texas had indeed violated McCorvey’s constitutional right to privacy which encompasses, among many things, the right to seek an abortion. The constitution gives individuals specific zones or protected areas of privacy which, according to the bench, includes but is not limited to abortion.

That said, the Supreme Court ruling was not a sweeping decision. It did not legalize abortion in its entirety. It placed certain restrictions defining specific points during pregnancy at which a woman could get an abortion. It came down to whether or not a fetus could survive outside the womb – assisted or otherwise.

The justices found that Texas laws on abortion “sweep too broadly.” Their ruling effectively struck down state laws that banned abortions altogether, both before and after the point of fetal viability.

How Does Roe v Wade Protect Abortion: The Fetal Viability Framework

Fetal viability is a medical term that defines the point at which a fetus can survive outside the mother’s womb. While there’s no universal consensus on this point, most healthcare facilities generally consider it around 23-24 weeks. Some hospitals will actively resuscitate and treat babies delivered at 22 weeks, and some rare cases where babies born at 21 weeks have survived.

When Justice Harry Blackmun wrote the majority opinion for Roe v Wade in 1973, the definition he gave for fetal viability was the point at which a fetus was capable of meaningful life outside the womb. At the time of this ruling, fetal viability was defined to be at about 28 weeks. Since then, medical advances have expanded it to around 24 weeks.

Trimesters were the central regulating factors in determining fetal viability at the time of Roe v Wade. During the first trimester of pregnancy, there were virtually no regulations allowed. In the second trimester, all regulations at this point were designed to protect the health of the mother. In the third trimester, the regulations were designed to protect the unborn child except in instances where the mother’s life was in jeopardy.

Planned Parenthood v Casey

Between 1988 and 1989, Pennsylvania amended its existing abortion laws, adding several restrictions for certain individuals who wanted to seek an abortion. Among these amendments was the requirement of a 24-hour waiting period and informed consent before someone could get an abortion.

Additionally, if a married woman wanted to get an abortion, she would first have to confirm that her husband was aware of it. A minor seeking an abortion was required to get written consent from at least one parent.

Soon after these changes were effected, abortion providers and healthcare practitioners sued the state, and the case went before the District Court. The court ruled in their favor, stating that the law infringed on the constitutional rights of Pennsylvania residents.

The state appealed this decision, and the case went before an appeals court, which at the time included Justice Samuel Alito. The court approved all the restrictions imposed by the state except for the requirement that married women seeking abortions had to get consent from their husbands beforehand. At the time of that ruling, Alito was the only dissenting judge in the court’s decision.

The case then went to the Supreme Court in 1992, which subsequently upheld the appellate court’s ruling. In its decision, the court stated that abortion rights in the state were still protected but that Casey had changed some aspects of what Roe v Wade had initially determined. Planned Parenthood v Casey scrapped the trimester framework but left the core provisions of Roe v Wade intact.

Abortion Before Roe v Wade

Before Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey, the decision on whether to allow or ban abortions was left up to the states. Laws varied widely, with New York having the most liberal abortion policies at the time. Abortions were legal in the state within the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.

States like Hawaii, Alaska, and Washington had somewhat similar laws. However, to get an abortion, the individual in question had to be a state resident. Thirteen states in the country had laws that legalized abortion but under very specific circumstances. The rest of the states had a sweeping ban on abortion except for cases where it was necessary to preserve the life of the mother.

Roe v Wade Significance

For many, Roe v Wade is the case that “made abortion legal” in the country. While that may very well be what happened, saying that it legalized abortion isn’t exactly the case. What it did was classify abortion as something that is protected under the constitutional right to privacy and change the way states previously regulated abortion.

What is interesting is that Roe v Wade did not do much to impact the number of abortions performed in the United States every year. According to the findings of a 2003 research, more than 1 million illegal abortions were performed in the country every year before the 1973 landmark ruling.

After Roe, that number still remains at 1 million legal abortions performed annually. However, what did change was the number of deaths resulting from abortions. The mortality rate dropped significantly in the years following the Supreme Court ruling.

Since Roe v Wade, abortion has been legal based on the judicial interpretation of the constitution. However, following the court’s decision, many anti-abortion proponents have continually lobbied for stricter abortion laws. While most of them haven’t been able to ban it outright, they have managed to get some restrictions on abortions.

For instance, several states across the country have limitations placed on abortions in certain circumstances. Some of these include restrictions on what would be considered a late-term abortion, mandatory disclosure of risks involved when getting an abortion, parental notification requirements for minors, and so forth.

The abortion debate is still a heated and controversial topic across the nation. States still pass laws designed to regulate abortion, most of which are often challenged in federal courts. Most of them don’t make it to the Supreme Court.

In light of the recent goings-on, a lingering question on the minds of many is: Will Roe v Wade be overturned?

2022 Supreme Court Draft Opinion Leaked

supreme court of the united states in washington dc

On May 2, 2022, Politico published what is alleged to be the initial draft majority opinion which appears to be overturning Roe v Wade, the 1973 landmark ruling that legalized abortion nationwide. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts has since confirmed the authenticity of the leaked document and has ordered an investigation into how the draft opinion was leaked.

The Supreme Court has historically been leak-proof. Only a handful of individuals – the justices themselves and a few select individuals who work for them – have access to Court decisions before they are published. Those with access usually sign pledges of confidentiality beforehand.

While this is not the first time Supreme Court decisions have leaked, none have been of the apparent magnitude Politico published. For instance, in 1973, Time magazine published the outcome of the court’s decision in Roe v Wade hours before it was made public.

The same thing happened in the late 1970s when Tim O’Brien, a reporter for ABC, published about half a dozen scoops on upcoming rulings before the court delivered them. At the time, it was not clear who was feeding O’Brien with this information, although the Chief Justice at the time, Warren Burger, suspected that it might have been someone in the court’s print shop who had access to the confidential documents.

For now, it is not yet clear who could have leaked the 98-page Justice Alito draft majority opinion or what might have motivated them to do it. Politico only said that it had “received” the document from someone “familiar with the court’s proceedings,” alongside other information that validates its authenticity.

What Happens if Roe v Wade Is Overturned

Nine justices sit on the Supreme Court bench. Six of them are appointees of Republican administrations, making them the conservative majority.

Contents of Justice Alito’s draft majority opinion suggest that the Supreme Court is poised to overrule Roe v Wade 1973, although this could change before it delivers the final ruling. It is unclear whether the leaked document is a solid representation of the justices’ final word on the matter.

If this decision is a predictor of what to expect, it will likely result in sweeping abortion bans in roughly half of the states across the country. This could, in turn, have far-reaching ramifications in the upcoming 2022 midterm elections.

The draft opinion states that Roe v Wade was “egregiously wrong” from the beginning. This is in relation to Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case that went before the Supreme Court challenging Mississippi’s ban on abortions sought after 15 weeks.

If the court rules in favor of the state, the constitutional right to an abortion will effectively be revoked. Individual states will have the power to decide whether or not to make abortion legal.

What a Future Without Roe v Wade Looks Like

Here’s a brief overview of what the future holds if Roe v. Wade is overturned:

Trigger Laws Would Be Enacted

20+ states across the country already have legislation that could outlaw or restrict abortion once the Supreme Court reverses Roe v Wade 1973. One such law is known as a “trigger law.” It is designed to kick in after the Supreme Court delivers a decision that would overturn an existing law.

Other states still have pre-1973 abortion bans in waiting that have yet to be enforced. Some have laws that express the states’ intent to crack down on abortion if the Supreme Court allows it.

An influx of Patients in the Pro-Abortion States

Soon after Texas enacted its six-week abortion ban, some residents began to seek care out of state. If the Supreme Court ruling overturns Roe, states that have legalized abortion are likely to see a rise in the number of patients from out of state seeking abortion services.

Minority Women Will Bear the Brunt of Abortion Bans

The Associated Press indicates that Black and Hispanic women report higher abortion rates compared to their Caucasian counterparts. Minority women also experience higher rates of poverty and would, therefore, find it harder to travel out of state for an abortion.

Negative Long-Term Health Effects

According to a study by the University of California, San Francisco, denying women the right to get an abortion harms them in the long term. The women who went ahead and had their babies suffered grievous economic hardship that persisted for several years. They were also at a higher risk of developing serious health-related complications and were more likely to raise their child alone.

Need advice on a legal issue? Chat online with an experienced Laws101 attorney right now.

Depp v. Heard – What’s Behind the Defamation Trial?

Legal AssistantPersonal Injury Law

On April 11, 2022, Johnny Depp filed a $50 million defamation lawsuit against his ex-wife Amber Heard in Fairfax, Virginia. In the high-profile case, the 58-year-old Pirates of the Caribbean actor alleged that Heard’s accusations of domestic abuse during their three-year marriage were not only false but also damaged his long-standing career.

After six weeks of courtroom drama between the former spouses, the jurors began their deliberations on May 27, 2022, to determine whether there was abuse in their troubled marriage and whether Heard’s December 2018 op-ed piece in the Washington Post was defamatory.

What is a defamation lawsuit, and how hard is it to sue for damages in a libel claim? This article takes an in-depth look at the Depp defamation case.

The ongoing libel case involving Amber Heard and Johnny Depp isn’t the first time the estranged couple has been embroiled in a heated legal battle. Below is a detailed timeline of where it all began. It examines the genesis of the contentious back-and-forth in which both parties accuse each other of perpetrating domestic abuse in the course of their marriage.

May 2016: Heard Files for Divorce

On May 23, 2016, Heard filed for divorce after less than two years of marriage on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. Four days later, the actress filed for and was granted a temporary restraining order against Depp.

Over the next few months, the legal battle played out publicly, with tabloids publishing several photographs and recordings of Heard’s alleged abuse claims. Court documents revealed that one of the several alleged instances of domestic violence by Depp happened two days before Heard filed for divorce.

In the documents, she stated that Depp had been physically and verbally abusive to her throughout their relationship. She claimed she had endured angry, threatening, and humiliating assaults from him anytime she disagreed with him or questioned his authority.

In June of the same year, People magazine published a widely publicized photograph of Heard showing a bruised eye and lip. Depp’s legal team denied all the abuse allegations against him.

August 2016: Depp and Heard Divorce Settlement

A day before a restraining order hearing against Depp was set to begin, Heard retracted the abuse allegations she had previously made against him. The actors released a joint statement describing their troubled relationship as “deeply passionate and sometimes volatile, but bound in love.” It further stated that neither Heard nor Depp made any false accusations motivated by financial gain and that their intent was never to cause any emotional or physical harm.

According to the Hollywood Reporter, the estranged couple negotiated a non-disparagement agreement as part of the $7 million divorce settlement. Heard claimed she donated the proceeds to the Los Angeles Children’s Hospital and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

December 2018: Amber Heard Op Ed Washington Post

On December 18, 2018, The Washington Post published an op-ed piece by Heard, which identified her as both an actress and a women’s rights ambassador at the ACLU. In the article, Heard encouraged readers to show support to victims of domestic violence who come forward with abuse allegations. She also urged the audience to elect leaders whose primary agenda is to institute changes to laws and social norms with regard to gender-based violence.

Despite there being no direct mention of Depp, the public widely interpreted the piece as a thinly-veiled reference to him, given the glaring coverage of their contentious divorce two years earlier.

The op-ed touched on, among many things, the overwhelming attention from the paparazzi, several death threats, and the significant career losses she faced after coming forward with her abuse allegations. Heard claimed that she had first-hand experience seeing how society protects men accused of perpetrating domestic violence against women.

March 2019: Depp Sues Heard for Defamation

On March 1, 2019, Depp filed a defamation lawsuit in Fairfax Circuit Court, VA, following the Post publication. In the complaint, his legal team stated that Heard’s op-ed was centered on the premise that she was a victim of domestic abuse and that Depp was the perpetrator.

They argued that not only was this premise “categorically false,” but that it was Heard who perpetrated physical and verbal abuse against Depp. His claim was in reference to an incident she previously stated was an act of self-defense.

The complaint further attributed Heard’s piece in The Washington Post as being the reason Disney terminated Depp’s contract in the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. Four days after the op-ed was published, the media giant announced that it would no longer be working with Depp.

Depp, through his attorney Adam Waldman stated that the new defamation suit was brought on “newly available evidence” that had not been disclosed before. It included dozens of witness testimonies and surveillance tapes that refute Heard’s claims of abuse.

April 2019: Heard Files Motion to Dismiss

In her response, Heard alleged that Depp’s abuse toward her began one year into their relationship after she witnessed him abusing drugs and alcohol. She detailed several instances of the alleged abuse, which she claimed went on from 2012 to 2016.

One notable incident she described occurred in March 2015, when she alleges that Depp attacked her and left her barefoot and naked, covered in alcohol and shattered glass. Heard claimed that the tip of his finger was severed during the incident.

May 2019: Depp Files Motion to Oppose Dismissal

On May 20, 2019, Depp filed a motion opposing Heard’s application to have the case dismissed. Through his legal team, Depp argued that the lawsuit would have to be litigated in Virginia and not California due to a law that requires libel cases to be resolved in the “place of publication” rather than the “place of harm.”

Alongside the opposition, Depp filed a declaration stating that Heard had falsified the domestic abuse allegations against him. He claimed that on May 23, 2016, his soon-to-be ex-wife arrived in court with what he described as “painted-on bruises,” which, based on surveillance footage and witness testimonies, were not present the week before.

He further accused Heard of being abusive toward him during the entirety of their relationship, particularly when she was under the influence. He vehemently denied ever abusing Heard or any other woman.

Heard’s attorney, Eric George, released a statement dismissing Depp’s allegations as false, stating that the defamation suit against his ex-wife was a desperate attempt to revive his failing career.

What Happened to Johnny Depp in the UK Libel Case

newspapers pile on display

On April 27, 2018, The Sun newspaper, a UK-based media outlet, published an article on their website that referred to him as a “wife-beater.” The article was also published in the hard copy edition of the local newspaper with similar content.

Both pieces talked about Depp and Heard’s troubled relationship, focusing heavily on the alleged abuse perpetrated by Depp against his ex-wife. The recurring theme in the publications was that Depp was guilty of domestic violence against Heard, that he caused her grievous harm, and that she feared for her life as a result. The Sun further noted that Depp’s continuing restraining order made him unfit to work in the film industry.

In his claim against the newspaper giant, Depp alleged that the articles had caused serious harm to his professional and personal reputation. He pointed to the gravity of the allegations given the publication’s wide reach and the reverberating effect they would have in the midst of the #MeToo and #Time’sUp movements, both of which were widespread at the time.

Depp sued News Group Newspapers Ltd., the publisher of The Sun newspaper, and Dan Wootton, the publisher and owner of the media firm’s associated website. Depp lost the libel suit after his claim was dismissed by the court.

In his ruling, the presiding judge, Justice Nicol, concluded that Depp abused his ex-wife in 12 out of the 14 incidents brought forward by Heard. Based on UK civil law, the allegations sufficiently met the standard of proof required to show that the articles published in The Sun were true. Depp applied for permission to appeal the ruling in the Court of Appeal, but his application was subsequently rejected.

The biggest difference between the Johnny Depp abuse case in the UK versus the ongoing proceedings in the US is that a jury in Virginia will determine the outcome of the suit. In London, the decision was left in the hands of the presiding judge.

What Is Libel and Slander

While the terms defamation, libel, and slander are often used interchangeably, they don’t mean the same thing. However, they both have to do with causing harm to an individual’s reputation.

Defamation is a general area of law that provides an avenue through which you can sue a person or an entity for causing harm to your personal or professional reputation.

Libel refers to a published or written defamatory statement, while slander refers to a spoken defamatory statement made to a third party.

Some places where you might find potentially libelous statements include:

  • Blog posts
  • Blog post comments
  • Internet chat rooms
  • Letters to the editor of local newspaper publications
  • Opposite-the-editorial-page (op-ed) pieces on print and digital media
  • Public comments made on media websites

It is uncommon to find libelous statements published in written “letters to the editor” since they go through a thorough screening process to avoid landing on the wrong side of the law.

On the other hand, slander is an oratory statement. It can be made to anyone and anywhere, provided it is made to a third party other than the victim of defamatory remarks.

Keep in mind that the term “statement” as used in the context of defamation law can be written, spoken, pictured, or gestured.

Is Defamation a Crime

Under US law, defamation is not considered a crime. Instead, it is classified as a civil wrong, otherwise known as a “tort.” It means that an individual who has been defamed – either through libel or slander – can sue the perpetrator for damages. The overall objective of defamation law is to provide a remedy to the aggrieved party.

With that in mind, the question then becomes: How hard is it to sue for defamation?

While laws vary from state to state, there are four common elements that remain the same across the board when proving a defamation suit. The plaintiff needs to show that the statements made were:

1. Published

A third party saw or heard the defamatory statement. A “third-party” in this case refers to someone other than the individual who made the statement or the individual about whom the statement was about. “Published” doesn’t necessarily mean “printed.” The statement just needs to have been made public. This could be through television, social media, loud conversation, or even gossip.

2. False

For a defamatory statement to be considered damaging, it needs to be false. In other words, regardless of how disparaging the statements are, if they are true, then they are not defamatory.

3. Harmful

The person suing for defamation needs to show how injurious the statements were to their reputation. For instance, they need to prove that their reputation was harmed, causing them to lose their job or potential business opportunities, be subjected to press harassment, be shunned by friends and family, etc.

4. Unprivileged

In some states, courts do not consider some forms of communication “privileged,” depending on the setting in which the statements are made. For instance, communication in official proceedings such as police interviews, judicial proceedings, and executive actions is deemed privileged. Statements related to the proceedings in question but made outside these settings can be used in a defamation case.

What Is the Punishment for Defamation of Character

Depending on the state you reside in, there are generally three types of damages you can file for in a civil defamation case:

  • Compensatory damages: These refer to the actual losses suffered by an individual or business as a result of slanderous or libelous statements.
  • Punitive damages: These are awarded if the plaintiff can prove that the defendant acted maliciously or with intent to harm.
  • Nominal damages: These are awarded if the plaintiff can prove that they were the victim of slanderous or libelous statements but cannot define the injuries they suffered.

Depp v. Heard Verdict

The jury determined that Heard did indeed defame Depp on all counts. He was awarded $10 million and $5 million in compensatory and punitive damages, respectively. The judge capped the latter amount at $350,000, which is the maximum awardable punitive damages in the state of Virginia.

On the other hand, the jury awarded Heard $2 million in compensatory damages. She indicated that she was “unable to pay” the $8.35 million she owes Depp and would appeal the verdict.

Are you a victim of slander or libel? Chat with a Laws101 attorney right now to explore the available options for legal recourse.

trevor reed detained in russia featured image

Why Was Trevor Reed Detained in Russia?

Legal AssistantInternational Law

On July 30, 2020, Trevor Reed, a former US Marine, was sentenced by a Moscow court to serve a nine-year jail term in Russia. The 30-year-old Texan was arrested and convicted on various charges, including assaulting two prison officers. The verdict received nationwide attention, with Texas Republicans criticizing the Biden Administration for not doing more to help the Reed family bring their kin home.

What was Trevor Reed doing in Russia, and why was he detained? Here’s the lowdown on the Trevor Reed story.

Why Was Trevor Reed Detained

In the summer of 2019, Trevor Reed made a trip to Russia with his then-girlfriend to learn the language. Following a drunken party in the nation’s capital, Moscow, Reed was arrested by law enforcement officers on intoxication charges in August of the same year and thrown in jail to sober up.

However, upon questioning by Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) agents, the charges were escalated to violently assaulting two officers at the time of his arrest, charges that he vehemently denied.

According to Reed’s family, the charges against him were completely fabricated, and no evidence was presented to support them. The US administration has repeatedly expressed concerns that American ex-servicemen detained abroad may have been targeted for political reasons.

In July 2020, 11 months after his arrest, Reed was found guilty of the charges brought against him. He was sentenced to serve nine years behind bars in a Mordovia prison, 352 miles from Moscow. John J. Sullivan, the United States ambassador to Moscow, termed the conviction “absurd.” He stated that a nine-year jail term for a crime that “obviously did not occur” was “ridiculous.”

Trevor Reed and Paul Whelan

Reed’s arrest and subsequent conviction have drawn comparisons to the case of Paul Nicholas Whelan, another ex-Marine who suffered a similar fate.

Whelan, a 52-year-old US Marine veteran, was arrested in December 2018 by the FSB on spying charges. He had traveled to the country to attend a friend’s wedding. The Michigan native was held for one and a half years in Moscow’s Lefortovo jail during the trial before being found guilty of espionage. He was sentenced to serve a 16-year jail sentence in a maximum-security prison facility with the possibility of time in a labor camp.

Whelan maintained his innocence and accused Russia of fabricating the charges against him. He stated that it was an intricate ploy to use him as a bargaining chip in the country’s diplomatic relations with the US.

Mike Pompeo, the then US Secretary of State in the Trump administration, denounced Whelan’s conviction, accusing Russia of denying him a fair hearing before an impartial and independent tribunal. Russian authorities classified the case “top-secret,” and no details of the charges brought against him were ever publicly disclosed.

Whelan’s defense stated that he was the victim of a crude set-up by the FSB, who used his long-time friend, Ilya Yatsenko, to frame him. His lawyers claim that the friend, who was an FSB officer, visited him in his hotel room in December 2018 and planted the classified materials, which officers found in his possession at the time of his arrest.

Whelan believed that his friend was bringing him a memory card containing photos they had taken together during an excursion to a monastery town earlier that year. Unbeknownst to him, the memory card contained classified materials. At the time of his arrest, there had been a lot of speculation that Russia would use Whelan in a possible exchange for Russian prisoners held in the US. This, however, was not the case.

Trevor Reed Prisoner Exchange

On the week of March 28, 2022, Reed went on a hunger strike protesting his ill-treatment in a Russian prison. He stated that he was not receiving treatment for possible tuberculosis. Instead, he was placed in solitary confinement as punishment. His family alleges that he was sent to the prison medical facility but did not receive meaningful medical attention to treat his condition.

Russian authorities released a statement claiming that Reed’s allegations are false and were part of a scheme to get Western media to give them bad press in light of the recent goings-on in Ukraine.

On April 27, 2022, following months of lengthy negotiations led by President Biden, Reed was released in a prisoner swap in exchange for US-jailed Russian pilot Konstantin Yaroshenko. Yaroshenko was convicted in 2011 on charges of conspiring to import cocaine worth more than $100 million into the US. He was sentenced to 20 years behind bars and was doing time in a Connecticut correctional facility.

Before his eventual conviction, Yaroshenko had been captured by US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) agents in Liberia in a dramatic undercover operation on May 28, 2010.

Over the last several decades, the US government has periodically been involved in prisoner swaps with Russia and what was the former Soviet Union. With Russia’s continued invasion of Ukraine, the Reed-Yaroshenko exchange came at a time when tensions between the two countries had been at an all-time high since the Cold War.

Why Was Paul Whelan Left Behind

While Whelan expressed his happiness about Reed’s release, he questioned why he was left behind. In a statement made through his parents, Whelan reiterated that the US administration was aware that his charges were fabricated and is wondering why more has not been done to secure his release.

He is concerned that with the recent Reed-Yaroshenko prisoner swap, the US may not have as many concessions to make. His family, through a statement by Paul’s brother, David Whelan, says they are not clear on their next steps.

President Biden did, however, assure the Whelan family of his administration’s commitment to bring Paul back home.

The US has also called on Russia to release Brittney Griner, a WNBA star who was arrested in February on drug-related charges. Paul and Brittney are among dozens of US nationals who are arbitrarily detained by sovereign states in different parts of the world.

Are you or your loved one currently in a legal bind? Chat online with an experienced Laws101 attorney to find out what your next steps should be.

what is nato and its responsibilities featured image

What Is NATO and What Are Its Responsibilities?

Legal AssistantInternational Law

In 1994, 45 years after the formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the US military shot down four Serbian warplanes that were on an active bombing mission over the no-fly zone in Bosnia. This was the first time in history NATO was engaged in military action since it was established some four decades earlier.

Sixty thousand troops were deployed to enforce the Dayton peace accord, which was enacted by the former Yugoslavia leaders, after a UN peacekeeping force failed to put a stop to the fighting that had, by that point, been going on for two years.

Since then, the organization has deployed several peacekeeping missions in Afghanistan, Herzegovina, North Macedonia, Libya, and Iraq, and the scope of its initial objective has since expanded. What is NATO, and what are its responsibilities?

Here’s everything you need to know.

Why Was NATO Formed?

NATO, which is short for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is a national security alliance that consists of 30 member states that border the North Atlantic Ocean – hence the name. It includes Canada, the US, the UK, Turkey, and most of the member states in the European Union. The full list of NATO countries is as follows:

  • United States
  • United Kingdom
  • Croatia
  • Montenegro
  • Belgium
  • Norway
  • Estonia
  • France
  • Romania
  • Italy
  • North Macedonia
  • Latvia
  • Albania
  • Spain
  • Iceland
  • Bulgaria
  • Poland
  • Greece
  • Slovakia
  • Luxembourg
  • Portugal
  • Hungary
  • Canada
  • Netherlands
  • Lithuania
  • Slovenia
  • Turkey
  • Czech Republic
  • Germany
  • Denmark

When the alliance was first formed in 1949, the initial founding countries consisted of 12 states, namely:

  • United States
  • United Kingdom
  • Iceland
  • Netherlands
  • Denmark
  • Italy
  • Portugal
  • Belgium
  • Luxembourg
  • Norway
  • Canada
  • France

The original goal of the alliance was to counter the post-war threat posed by the expansion of the Soviet Union in Europe. The Soviet response to NATO was to create its own military alliance known as the Warsaw Pact. It consisted of the communist countries in Eastern Europe.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, several former Warsaw Pact member countries abandoned the communist alliance, joining NATO instead. This mass defection is what grew the number of member countries to the present 30, up from the previous 12.

What Does NATO Do?

NATO’s main objective is to protect the freedom and security of all its allied countries. While the organization is a defensive military alliance, perhaps the most important of all the NATO responsibilities is diplomacy. The idea behind this approach is to find ways of resolving conflict without resorting to force.

Allied countries work together to find collaborative solutions that address the needs of all parties. It promotes peace and fosters an environment conducive to economic and political cooperation on either side of the Atlantic Ocean.

On a broader front, NATO has been looking to expand its influence in North America and Europe, which has, in turn, allowed the economies of member states to thrive.

How Does NATO Work?

NATO’s primary mission revolves around protecting the freedom of its allied members and their regional political and economic stability. It targets terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, and cyberattacks.

Based on the provisions of Article 5 of the treaty, an attack against any of the allied nations is considered an attack against all the member states. If one of the nations is attacked in what would be considered an act of aggression, all the allied states will retaliate.

To date, Article 5 has only been invoked once since the treaty was first signed by NATO founders in 1949. This was in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on US soil.

It’s important to keep in mind that NATO’s protection only applies to external threats and acts of aggression against allied countries. This protection does not apply in situations involving internal coups or civil wars in member states. These are considered domestic affairs and do not warrant NATO’s intervention.

For instance, if Turkey were under attack from an external aggressor, which could be anything from a full-on military attack to a terrorist bombing, it would receive allied support from other member states that are party to the treaty. On the other hand, if Turkey’s own defense forces carried out a coup to overthrow the existing regime, NATO would not intervene.

This begs the question: Who funds NATO? The short answer is – its member states. However, the US contributes almost 75% of NATO’s entire budget, with only 10 countries reaching the target expenditure level of 2% of their gross domestic product (GDP).

What Is Article 5 of NATO?

One of the treaty’s major provisions is Article 5, which states that: Allied countries agree that an act of armed aggression against one or more of them constitutes an attack against all of them.

While this commitment to the collective defense of all parties to the pact is integral to NATO’s mission, active participation is not compulsory. The treaty leaves it up to member states to decide their contribution to NATO defense efforts.

The NATO Response Force consists of high-readiness air, land, sea, and special troops that can be deployed rapidly to combat military attacks on an allied country. Until February 2022, the units designated to the Response Force have only been deployed to security-related activities at high-profile events and relief missions to disaster-hit regions.

However, when the Russian invasion of Ukraine escalated, NATO passed a resolution to activate the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF) for the first time in history to protect its allied members against potential attacks by offering rapid and collective defense in case of an Article 5 operation.

Why Is NATO Still Relevant Today?

Seventy-three years on, NATO is still as relevant today as it was when it was first established. It plays an integral role in global security. The values that bind the allied nations have not changed, and it has succeeded in its core mission to deter acts of aggression from rival nations against the member states. It hasn’t just made the West stronger than ever; it has kept member countries free.

Ultimately, NATO has endured because of the values its allied members share – freedom, democracy, mutual respect, and solidarity.

Need more legal advice? Chat with a Laws101 attorney online right now.

is ukraine part of nato featured image

Is Ukraine Part of NATO? Why Does This Matter?

Legal AssistantInternational Law

On February 24, 2022, the world watched Russia launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Russian troops bombed cities and military bases as innocent civilians began a mass exodus to flee the country. The attack sparked outrage from global leaders and citizens all over the world.

As attacks spilled over into the second day, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy released a statement addressing other European leaders in an appeal for reinforcement. He stated in part that when bombs fall in Ukraine, it happens in every other part of Europe; that other European nations are equally at risk if they stand by and watch Ukrainian cities burn. He called for more protection, citing that Europe as a whole has enough resources and military might to step in and stop Russia’s aggression.

As the war rages on, the glaring question on most people’s minds is: Is Ukraine part of NATO, and why does this matter? This article explores the answers to this question and more.

Is Ukraine a Member of NATO?

The short answer is—no. Ukraine is not a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member. While it does cooperate closely as a partner country, it does not enjoy the same security guarantees that member states in NATO’s founding treaty have. To better understand why Ukraine isn’t a NATO member, it’s important to establish what the requirements for joining the alliance are in the first place.

The alliance has an “open-door policy” for membership, according to the NATO website. All countries in the EU that have what it takes to make a positive contribution to the security of the Euro-Atlantic region and promote the principles outlined in the Washington Treaty are eligible to join the alliance. That said, joining NATO can only be done at the invitation of the North Atlantic Council.

If a country chooses to join the alliance, it needs to follow specific procedures and criteria. Parts of these involve certain military, political, and economic objectives. As it stands, the NATO countries list consists of 30 member states, namely:

  • United States
  • United Kingdom
  • Croatia
  • Montenegro
  • Belgium
  • Norway
  • Estonia
  • France
  • Romania
  • Italy
  • North Macedonia
  • Latvia
  • Albania
  • Spain
  • Iceland
  • Bulgaria
  • Poland
  • Greece
  • Slovakia
  • Luxembourg
  • Portugal
  • Hungary
  • Canada
  • Netherlands
  • Lithuania
  • Slovenia
  • Turkey
  • Czech Republic
  • Germany
  • Denmark

NATO Membership Requirements

In 1995, NATO established requirements for countries seeking to become part of the alliance. To become a member, the country in question needs to:

  • Have a functional democratic political system that runs on a market economy
  • Ensure that its minority populations are treated fairly
  • Commit to peaceful conflict resolution
  • Be able and willing to make a significant military contribution to NATO’s operations
  • Commit to democratic institutional infrastructures and civil-military relationships

Now, while Ukraine may want to become a member of NATO and may even be able to meet all the membership requirements, from a practical standpoint, it may not be possible to do so at this point. It would be hard for NATO to absorb a country that already has unresolved territorial disputes with an already-simmering territorial conflict since that would mean that the other countries in the alliance would, in turn, absorb that conflict.

Why Wasn’t Ukraine Part of NATO Before?

One might then ask: Why didn’t Ukraine join NATO before the ongoing attacks began? The alliance felt (and likely steel feels) that Ukraine had not eradicated political corruption and that it was still, in many ways, a developing democracy. This meant that the country had not yet met some of the membership requirements set out by the North Atlantic treaty.

At the 2008 NATO summit held in Bucharest, the alliance welcomed Ukraine’s bid to join the coalition. The member countries agreed that they would approve the bid once it met all the criteria for membership.

Since the Bucharest summit, Ukraine appeared to be on a solid path toward meeting those requirements. However, with the current conflict plaguing the nation, NATO membership at this point and in the future seems a lot less likely.

On the flip side, there is an unwritten reason why NATO was reluctant to let Ukraine join the alliance. Given Russia’s historical interest in Ukraine and its relative proximity to it, most of the European leaders in the alliance were concerned about the repercussions Ukraine’s membership in NATO would have on their existing relationships.

Many European nations were dead set against Ukraine joining NATO simply because they wanted to strengthen their ties to Russia.

Why NATO Does Not Intervene in Ukraine?

As mentioned in an earlier section, Ukraine is not a member of NATO and, as such, does not enjoy the same security guarantees that other countries in the alliance have. It’s also worth noting that NATO cannot declare a no-fly zone over Ukrainian soil, nor can it send troops to quell the conflict. The actions the alliance can take are defensive. They are supposed to prevent conflict and not provoke it.

That said, will NATO defend Ukraine? It is unlikely not to do so as this would put NATO forces in a direct line of fire with Russia. It would then escalate the war and cause the other countries in the alliance to become targets of the attacks, making an already bad situation worse. If Ukraine were a member of NATO, the alliance would be left with no choice but to intervene.

NATO Response to Russian Invasion of Ukraine

Unfortunately, Russia’s most recent brutal assault on Ukraine isn’t the country’s first display of targeted aggression. In 2014, Russia launched an invasion of Eastern Ukraine that led to the annexing of Crimea, which is now part of Russia.

In response, NATO suspended cooperation with Russia and boosted Ukraine’s existing military power. It funded cyber-warfare defenses, deployed military personnel to the region, and held extensive training exercises to strengthen Ukraine’s defensive capabilities. Nonetheless, NATO’s troops did not actively participate in the fight.

As far as the February 24 invasion goes, NATO stated that it had no plans to deploy military troops to Ukraine. Instead, it would bolster its eastern flank to ensure that the existing conflict doesn’t spill over into the neighboring European nations that are part of the alliance.

In a statement released after Russia launched its attack, President Joe Biden confirmed that the US had no plans of getting involved in the conflict. He did, however, state that there were close to 90,000 troops stationed in Europe, most of whom were based in Germany, with an additional 7,000 to be deployed later that week.

As a precautionary measure, the alliance activated the combat-ready NATO response force for the first time in history. These highly specialized military forces were deployed to Eastern Europe to boost the security of the NATO allies that are in close proximity to the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Why Does Russia Not Want Ukraine to Join NATO?

protestor holding placard of russian president vladimir putin

A lingering question on many people’s minds since the onset of the conflict is: Why does Russia want Ukraine in the first place? The answer to Russia’s tumultuous relationship with Ukraine has to do with NATO.

Ukraine broke away from the Soviet Union roughly three decades ago, becoming an independent nation. While the country has long since desired to join NATO, the treaty alliance has not extended an official invitation for several reasons, key among which has to do with the country’s shortcomings as far as fighting corruption, the lack of adequate control over its foreign borders, and the gaps in its defenses.

Perceived Security Threat to Russia

Nonetheless, Putin’s demands extend beyond Ukraine’s aspirations to become a NATO member. The root of all his issues has to do with the West inching closer to the communist country’s borders.

In his opinion, NATO’s expansion which has, in turn, bolstered the alliance’s security, has been at the expense of Russia. Putin has continually demanded a legal guarantee that Ukraine, which shares a 1,426 mile-long border to the South West, be denied membership into the alliance.

By principle, NATO’s doors are open to any European country that wishes to join the alliance, even Russia, if it so pleases. It cannot deny membership to any nation that desires to become part of the pact.

Withdrawal of NATO Military Presence in Europe

Since NATO cannot stop Ukraine from joining once it meets all the membership requirements, Putin believes this move poses a direct threat to Russia’s security. While Washington maintains that no country in the alliance threatens to use force against the communist country, Putin demands that NATO withdraw its military presence in Eastern Europe, including the periodic rotational exercises in former Soviet states such as Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.

Although there are no American troops permanently based in these three countries, there were about 100 soldiers on rotational tours in Lithuania and 60 others in both Latvia and Estonia. Putin is also opposed to NATO’s presence of missile defense weapons in Romania, which is also a former Soviet state. A similar setup is currently ongoing in Poland, which Russia asserts could be converted into an offensive base that could be used to threaten Russia.

At the time of this publication, President Joe Biden approved an executive order to send more than 2,700 additional American soldiers to Germany, Romania, and Poland.

Historical Ties With Ukraine

Ukraine and Russia share deep cultural and historical ties. Putin has stated on several occasions that Ukrainians and Russians are “one people.” According to him, large tracts of Ukrainian soil are historically Russian. These regions were granted arbitrarily to Ukraine by Soviet Union leaders when it broke away to become an independent state.

By bringing Ukraine back into the fold, Putin asserts that this move will boost Ukrainian citizens’ sense of national identity. In 2014, Russia seized Crimea, which was initially part of Ukraine, instigating a rebellion in the country’s eastern region. This action only strengthened Ukraine’s desire to join NATO and align itself with the West.

In a recent address to the media, Putin expressed his concern that Ukraine could resort to using military force to reclaim Crimea and take back its territories in the east that were effectively under Russian control via armed insurgents.

According to him, if Ukraine joins NATO and launches military operations in the country, Russia would be left with no choice but to fight the alliance in a bid to protect itself, which would, in turn, mean that other member states would target Russia as well.

Is Ukraine in the EU?

Although Ukraine is in Europe, it has not joined the European Union despite strong support from several EU countries. Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, has stated that Ukraine belongs to the union.

However, it is not in her power to rule on matters concerning Ukraine EU membership admission. All 27 member states in the bloc have to agree on whether or not to admit Ukraine into the EU. Arriving at this decision is harder than it seems, given the recent struggles between various countries in the bloc about the EU expansion.

Central European countries are more open to Ukraine’s admission into the union. The presidents of Slovenia, Slovakia, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Bulgaria, and the Czech Republic have been quite vocal about granting the highest level of “political support” to the warring nation. Most of the other member states were opposed to Ukraine’s EU membership, citing that the move would directly threaten their own countries.

All the member states agree that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is unacceptable, with many leaders condemning Putin for his actions. Despite several EU leaders backing Ukraine’s bid for admission into the union, the process takes years.

While President Zelenskyy has been pushing for the process to be fast-tracked, the EU does not appear to be budging. It did, however, vow to grant protection to Ukrainian refugees and offer financial and economic assistance to help rebuild the country once the war stops.

The EU also states that it will apply economic pressure on Russia to get Putin to withdraw his troops immediately.

Need legal advice? Chat with a Laws101 attorney online right now.

russia want ukraine and crimea featured image

Why Does Russia Want Ukraine and Crimea?

Legal AssistantInternational Law

For many Russians, Kyiv – Ukraine’s capital city – is the birthplace of their nation. Many even acknowledge the deep cultural ties that exist between the two countries. That said, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, isn’t the first time the two former Soviet republics have been embroiled in bitter conflict.

Russia’s recent encroachment on Ukraine went down in history as the largest-ever land invasion in Europe since the end of World War II. In a passionate televised speech, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that Ukraine represents more than just a neighboring country. According to him, its borders are nothing more than an “administrative partition” of the former Soviet Union.

To many Westerners, Putin’s historical claim on Ukraine sounds outlandish. However, to understand why Russia is seemingly obsessed with Ukraine and Crimea, you need to go back in time, back to where it all began.

What is the conflict between Russia and Ukraine? Here’s everything you need to know.

A Brief History of Ukraine and Russia – Timeline of Events

Below is a brief overview of the history of conflict between Russia and Ukraine over the decades.

1918

In a war involving multiple countries fought by numerous armies for several years, Ukraine declared independence from Russia. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk recognized the infant nation’s sovereignty giving it international recognition. A few years later, Soviet forces invaded the independent country, proceeded to overthrow its government, and seized control over it. Ukraine was subsumed into the Soviet Union in 1921 to become the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.

1932-1933

Stalin’s policy of collectivization led to widespread famine in the Soviet Union. Ukraine, which was, at the time, fondly christened the “Soviet Union’s breadbasket,” was the hard hit by the disaster. The calamity was referred to as the Holodomor, a derivative of the Ukrainian word for famine.

1939-1944

The Soviet Union annexed what is now present-day Western Ukraine from Romania and Poland. In the years that followed, Nazi Germany and the rest of the Axis Powers, namely Italy and Japan, invaded the Soviet Union and occupied Ukraine. The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic suffered expansive devastation as a result.

1991

Ukraine declared independence. This move was the result of a referendum in which 92% of voters supported Ukraine’s bid for sovereignty. Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus later signed an accord recognizing the dissolution of the Soviet Union. In the years that followed, Ukraine transitioned to a market economy. It also amassed a massive stockpile of a nuclear arsenal that previously belonged to the former Soviet Union.

1994

Following the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for a solid commitment from Russia to “respect the sovereignty and independence” of its borders.

2014

In February that year, after more than two decades of peace between the two nations, Ukrainian protestors in the nation’s capital overthrew President Viktor Yanukovych. They cited the president’s tolerance of Moscow’s interests in what they perceived as a threat to Ukraine’s independence. The revolution culminated in more than 100 deaths during the protests held in the nation’s capital, Kyiv, which is sometimes referred to as the Maidan.

After the overthrow of Yanukovych’s administration, an interim government was formed. This pro-Western administration eventually signed a trade agreement with the European Union. The move signaled the first steps toward membership in the EU.

Russia Invades Ukraine 2014

Shortly afterward, Russian troops invaded Ukraine, the outcome of which was the Russian annexation of Crimea. In the months that followed, Russian-backed secessionists in eastern Ukraine declared themselves independent republics dubbed – the Luhansk People’s Republic and the Donetsk People’s Republic. The two newly-formed nations then proceeded to launch an attack on Ukraine.

The secessionist war raged on for several months after that in the eastern region of Ukraine known as Donbas. The conflict then spread to the west, cumulatively killing more than 13,000 Ukrainian civilians and soldiers.

2014-2015

Ukraine, Russia, France, and Germany signed multiple ceasefire agreements collectively referred to as the Minsk Accords. The exact details of these agreements were shrouded in secrecy, with many viewing them as ambiguous.

2019

In April that year, Volodymyr Zelensky – a former TV star – was elected president by a large majority. As part of his election promise, Zelensky vowed to restore Donbas to Ukraine and make peace with Russia.

2021-2022

Russian President Vladimir Putin wasn’t pleased with Ukraine’s persistent drift toward the west, which consists of the United States and its allies. He demanded a series of security “guarantees,” one of which was an assurance by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) that it would reject Ukraine’s bid to join the alliance. He also demanded that NATO pulls back troops stationed in countries that joined the pact in the years following 1997.

Why Did Russia Invade Georgia?

On August 8, 2008, the Russian invasion of Georgia marked the beginning of Europe’s 21st-century war. While the conflict itself only lasted a few days, it had far-reaching repercussions that continue to reverberate more than a decade later. This war shaped Europe’s wider geopolitical landscape.

Aptly dubbed “Europe’s forgotten war,” the international response to the Russo-Georgia war was conspicuously muted. Russia hardly suffered any negative consequences following its military campaign against the Eastern European nation. In fact, leaders in the EU led calls for a ceasefire whose terms largely favored Russian interests. While all this was going on, the US ushered in a new Obama-led administration whose approach was to renew and promote cordial relations with the Kremlin.

This somewhat accommodating approach by the EU and the west was widely interpreted by Russia as an informal green light to perpetrate further acts of aggression in what would historically fall within its sphere of influence. This apparent lack of accountability was seen six years later when, in 2014, Moscow led a military campaign against Ukraine and hived off the Crimean Peninsula.

Background to the Russo-Georgia Conflict

After the invasion of the Red Army in the early 1920s, the residents of South Ossetia were accused of siding with the Soviet Union. The result was that it became an autonomous region within the Soviet Socialist Republic of Georgia. Northern Ossetia fell on the other end of the Caucasus Mountains, effectively forming part of Russia.

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the early 90s, Georgia gained independence from Moscow and became a sovereign state. Zviad Gamsakhurdia subsequently came to power and stoked South Ossetia’s separatist movement sentiments. In 1992, the region gained independence from Georgia.

The general feeling at the time was that powerful military agents within the Russian armed forces were not pleased with the break-up of the Soviet Union. They incited the South Ossetians to rise up and rebel against Georgia. The idea was that its departure would weaken the country and leave it vulnerable to Russian forces who wanted to exact their revenge.

A three-way ceasefire agreement between South Ossetia, Georgia, and Russia was signed to end years of sporadic violence in the region. With it came 12 years of peace up until President Mikheil Saakashvili ascended to power in 2004. He wanted to reintegrate South Ossetia back into Georgia. However, his vision for a united Georgia was thwarted after South Ossetians rejected the idea in a referendum held two years later.

Russia’s Role in the Georgia-South Ossetia War

Georgia was not pleased with South Ossetia strengthening ties with Moscow when, in April 2008, Russia announced that it would no longer be a party to the economic sanctions imposed by the Commonwealth of Independent States.

These sanctions had been in place since 1996. Instead, it established diplomatic relations with the leadership of the separatist movements in South Ossetia, a move that angered Georgia.

On the other hand, Russia was not pleased with Georgia’s ambitions of becoming part of the European Union and NATO. By the summer of that year, both Russia and Georgia accused the other of preparing for a military assault.

By early August, tensions were high, and fighting broke out between the separatist forces and the Georgian army. The conflict escalated when Georgian forces launched concerted ground and air assaults on Tskhinvali – the capital of South Ossetia- on August 7, 2008.

Russia responded to these acts of aggression by entering South Ossetia under the pretext that it was coming to the aid of its nationals since many South Ossetians are Russian passport holders. After five days of fighting, the Russian and South Ossetian military pushed out the Georgians and even launched attacks on the Tbilisi suburbs.

When the war came to an end, more than 800 soldiers and civilians lost their lives. In the days following the conflict, South Ossetia, Georgia, and Russia agreed to a ceasefire. Russia recognized South Ossetia as an independent and sovereign region, making it one of the few countries worldwide that do.

What Does Putin Want in Ukraine?

people taking part in street protests against war in ukraine

After Vladimir Putin instigated the largest war in Europe since the end of World War II, the questions on most people’s minds are: What is his end goal? How does it all end?

When Russia first invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Putin justified the move, stating that the more Ukraine leaned toward the west, the more his country and its citizens were left vulnerable. He alleged that it was impossible for Russia to feel safe, to develop, or even exist.

Putin’s initial goal was to use Russian troops and a sophisticated collection of military arsenal to overrun Ukraine and overthrow its government. This outcome would effectively put to an end any longing or possibility of Ukraine joining NATO or any other western alliance.

However, Ukrainian defense forces jealously guarded Kyiv in a twist of fate, making it impossible for Putin to capture it despite repeated attempts over several months. With those setbacks, Russia turned its attention to the eastern and southern regions of Ukraine.

When Putin first invaded Ukraine, he stated that his overall goal was to “de-Nazify and demilitarize” the country and save Ukrainian nationals from what he referred to as several years of genocide and bullying by the Ukrainian government. He spoke of freeing Ukrainians from oppression, terming the invasion as a “special military operation” as opposed to war. He termed the operation a noble cause.

It’s important to mention that, for years, Russia has repeated the Nazi-and-genocide-in-Ukraine narrative for several years. However, these assertions are completely unfounded.

Ukraine and the Black Sea

On April 14, 2022, a Russian warship christened Moskva sank in the Black Sea after sustaining damage due to an explosion. According to Russia’s defense ministry, the 12,490-ton, 510-crew missile liner – Russia’s biggest warship, is said to have encountered stormy weather out at sea, causing it to sink while being towed to the designated port. As a result, the vessel sustained damage to the hull, causing a fire to break out when ammunition on board detonated. Moskva’s captain, who was on board at the time, was killed in the explosion.

Ukrainian military officials stated that their naval forces hit the warship with Neptune missiles, weapons that were designed in 2014 after Russia hived off the Crimean Peninsula. US officials also believe that the Russian warship was struck by two of these missiles, causing the explosion that ultimately sank the Moskva.

When Russia first invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022, the Moskva sailed to Snake Island, which forms part of Ukrainian territory on the Black Sea. The warship gained notoriety after navy soldiers onboard radioed the border troops on the island, calling for their surrender. The Ukrainian troops refused to yield and instead responded with an expletive-riddled message.

Ukraine Economy and GDP – Economic Outlook

Ukraine is the second-largest country in Europe after Russia. According to 2020 data from the World Bank, it has a population of 44.13 million with a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of $155.6 billion. This figure makes up 0.14% of the world economy.

Experts predict that the country’s economic output will reduce by a whopping 45% as a result of the disruption of trade. The closure of shipping through the Black Sea has cut off more than 50% of Ukraine’s total exports and close to 90% of its grain exports.

The war has disrupted economic operations in several areas across the country, the most notable being agricultural planting and harvesting activities. For now, it will be a long time before Ukraine recovers from the effects of the conflict.

Need more legal advice? Chat with a Laws101 attorney online right now.

impeachment of president trump featured image

Ukraine and the 1st Impeachment of President Trump

Legal AssistantConstitutional Law

Donald J. Trump became the first president in the history of the United States to face impeachment twice. The initial impeachment was over allegations of improperly seeking help from Ukraine to bolster his chances of getting re-elected into office.

The second time was over his alleged role in inciting his Republican supporters to storm the Capitol, an event that was documented live on national TV and social media.

As far as the first impeachment goes, the question on most people’s minds is how a foreign nation in Eastern Europe could have threatened the future of Trump’s presidency. This article takes an in-depth look at how the two are related.

Trump Ukraine Extortion – Background

To understand why Trump was impeached the first time, you first need to understand how he got there in the first place. He stated that on July 25, 2019, he called his Ukrainian counterpart, the then newly-elected President Volodymyr Zelensky, to congratulate him on winning the election. Zelensky, a former television star with no prior experience in the murky world of politics, had been elected to office a few months before the now-infamous phone call from Trump.

Trump Ukraine Whistleblower

This telephone exchange did not sit right with an anonymous whistleblower, alleged to be a CIA agent. In the formal complaint lodged on August 12, 2019, the whistleblower stated that although they did not listen in on the conversation between the two heads of state, their account was similar to that of a dozen other officials who claim to have first-hand accounts of the conversation. Among them was Mike Pompeo, the sitting Secretary of State at the time.

Trump’s phone call to Zelensky occurred a few days after he blocked military aid to Ukraine worth $391 million. According to critics, this move was seen as a bargaining chip President Trump could use to sway Zelensky.

The whistleblower further accused Trump of abuse of Presidential power, alleging that he used the power of the White House to solicit a foreign nation to interfere with the 2020 presidential election.

According to the whistleblower, the phone call between Trump and Zelensky was deeply disturbing, and they felt they had no choice but to act on it.

Transcript of Trump Call to Ukraine

As the controversy continued to gather momentum, there was mounting pressure to release the transcript of Trump’s call to Ukraine. Trump promised to release the full, unredacted details of the phone call to the public to prove that nothing was inappropriate about their conversation.

It later emerged that the information released by the White House was not a verbatim account of the conversation but rather notes detailing what was allegedly discussed by the two. This move did not do much to quell the controversy that was now spiraling out of control.

Based on the notes shared with the public, Trump was urging Zelensky to launch investigations into the alleged corruption claims against Joe Biden, who was at the time a former Vice President and front runner in the upcoming 2020 presidential bid, as well as Biden’s son Hunter.

Trump asserted that in 2015, Biden used his influence as Vice President in Obama’s administration to get Ukraine’s top prosecutor fired. The prosecutor in question had been looking into the dealings of a major energy company in which Hunter Biden had been employed.

Hunter had faced widespread criticism for working with foreign-owned multinationals while his father was Vice President, suggesting a potential conflict of interest. There was no evidence of Biden taking any measures that would intentionally benefit Hunter.

Hunter further denied any wrongdoing, with Ukrainian authorities stating that they did not have concrete evidence suggesting that Hunter had broken any laws.

What Was Trump’s Abuse of Power?

A sitting president of one country pressuring the leader of a foreign nation to re-open investigations into allegations that have already been discredited is a significant issue. Trump’s actions against Biden were tantamount to abuse of power since Biden would be his leading rival in the elections slated for the following year. The fact that he was seemingly colluding with a foreign power to influence the outcome of a presidential election is against the law.

With this knowledge in hand, the Democrats launched an inquiry into the Trump-Ukraine affair. Several officials were summoned to testify, including Kurt Volker, the US special envoy to Ukraine. He provided a myriad of communications, including several text message exchanges.

Bill Taylor, the acting ambassador to Ukraine, was also summoned. He disclosed to the inquiry that Trump pegged the release of military aid to the European nation on Ukrainian authorities re-opening investigations into Biden’s dealings in the country. Taylor also alluded to the presence of an “informal and irregular” US policy-making channel in the country. The White House vehemently denied these allegations.

The inquiry then subpoenaed Rudy Giuliani – Trump’s personal lawyer – to hand over all Ukraine-related documents in his possession. Giuliani had been at the heart of pushing the allegations leveled against Biden and his son. Pompeo also received a similar subpoena.

Gordon Sondland Impeachment Testimony

Of all the testimonies heard, the most dramatic one of them all came from the US ambassador to the European Union – Gordon Sondland. He stated that he acted at President Trump’s “express direction” when putting pressure on Ukraine to investigate the discredited allegations against Joe and Hunter Biden. Sondland stated that Trump instructed him to present Zelensky with an offer of a visit to the White House while making it clear that the visit was contingent on him publicly announcing a probe into the Bidens.

Gordon Sondland’s impeachment testimony also implicated former National Security Adviser John Bolton, as well as Pompeo, in the Ukraine affairs.

In December 2019, the Democrats in the House of Representatives brought two impeachment charges against Trump. The first was for abuse of power and the second for obstruction of Congress.

The House proceeded to vote for Trump’s impeachment, after which the Senate held a trial. For a successful conviction, a two-thirds majority vote is required. However, given that Republicans controlled the chamber, a guilty verdict was unlikely.

Trump escaped impeachment by 52 votes to 48 on the first charge and 53 votes to 47 on the second.

Trump Quid Pro Quo

During his presidential tenure, Trump was quoted several times saying that there wasn’t any quid pro quo between the US government and Ukraine. Despite these assertions, there were, in fact, two instances that stood out.

Based on several key documents and volumes of testimony released during the impeachment inquiry that the Democrats launched, it became apparent that the Trump administration made multiple attempts to pressure the Ukrainian government to launch new investigations into discredited allegations in exchange for something. These quid-pro-quo offers proceeded in two distinct phases.

The first instance was the White House visit offer made to President Zelensky in exchange for investigations into the Bidens. The Ukrainian authorities confirmed that they were told on several occasions that Trump would be more than happy to host Zelensky for a meeting in the White House, but only if he directed the Ukrainian investigative agencies to look into Joe Biden and his son.

The Trump administration pressed Ukraine to commit and publicly announce two investigations: Ukraine’s alleged interference in the 2016 US presidential election and Burisma – the energy company that employed Hunter. Zelensky did not yield to this pressure, much to Trump’s dismay.

The second instance was when Trump’s administration withheld $391 million worth of military funding to Ukraine contingent on Zelensky agreeing to launch investigations into the Bidens. President Trump himself issued an order to block the aid sometime around mid-July 2019, alluding to the fact that the suspension came as a result of the ongoing investigations of his phone call with Zelensky. The Ukrainian government only learned of the aid block a month later.

Ukrainians Informed of Trump’s Demands

On July 10, 2019, US and Ukrainian officials had a meeting at the White House. In her testimony, Fiona Hill, a National Security Council (NSC) staffer, stated that when the Ukrainian officials inquired about a potential meeting between the two presidents, Sondland informed them that Mick Mulvaney, the White House chief of staff at the time, had already reached an “agreement” beforehand. He stated that a meeting between the two heads of state would only happen once Ukraine launched investigations into the energy sector in the country.

John Bolton ended the meeting abruptly shortly after, but Sondland led some of the attendees to a different venue to discuss the matter further. In a testimony submitted by Alexander Vindman, an NSC staffer at the time, he stated that Sondland explicitly asked the Ukrainian officials for an investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden, although Hill testified that she did not remember hearing a specific reference to them. She did, however, indicate that she was not present at that particular point during the discussions.

In the two weeks following the meeting, discussions centered on setting up a phone call between Trump and Zelensky. A series of text messages between Kurt Volker and Andriy Yermak (the presidential adviser to Zelensky) emerged, making the quid pro quo quite clear.

Russian Information War 2016

trump supporters during a campaign rally

Despite the spiraling controversy of Trump’s connection with Ukraine, it wasn’t the first time he faced scrutiny over his links to foreign powers. His election campaign in 2016 was also under investigation over alleged ties to Russia.

According to an indictment presented to a federal grand jury, a Russian organization dubbed the Internet Research Agency deployed a series of strategies designed to support Trump’s campaign while “disparaging” Hillary Clinton’s bid in the presidential race to the White House.

Some of the tactics used by the agency included widespread identity theft and putting out hundreds of posts on social media and blogs meant to present Clinton in a bad light. The indictment referred to this as information warfare, further revealing that the agency had a $1.2 million monthly budget to work with.

The operation began in 2014 when a group of Russian nationals traveled extensively across the United States in a bid to understand the country’s political landscape and the unique role social media played in it.

The team traveled using fake identities, gathering information that they would later use in their misinformation campaigns. Their main focus was on the states that traditionally swing both ways in elections.

Fake Identities

In early 2016, the Russians stole personally identifiable information from hundreds of American nationals. They stole Social Security Numbers, dates of birth, and home addresses of real Americans, used them to open and operate bank accounts, create fake social media profiles, particularly on Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter, purchase online ads, and even buy banners, flags, and buttons for campaign rallies that they would use close to the elections.

Social Media Warfare

The Russian agency had hundreds of people on its payroll to impersonate ordinary Americans and create social media accounts posing as them. They would then create thematic groups that touched on various issues such as religion, race, and immigration to fuel discord in the election.

Most of the accounts were used to disparage Clinton and support Trump. They were also used to promote certain hashtags such as #TrumpTrain, #Trump2016, #Hillary4Prison, and several others and push allegations of mass voter fraud.

Additionally, the Russians made a concerted push to discourage minority voters from voting in the 2016 elections or pushing them in the direction of third-party candidates who were also running for president.

Three Russian entities and 13 Russian nationals were charged for their respective roles in the scheme. Although the inquiry did not find a criminal conspiracy to interfere with the election, it did not entirely exonerate Trump from obstructing justice. The Russians had no direct contact with Trump’s campaign team, and no evidence was presented that linked Trump to Moscow.

Need more legal advice? Chat with a Laws101 attorney online right now.

ukraine no fly zone featured image

Why Won’t the US or NATO Establish a Ukraine No Fly Zone?

Legal AssistantInternational Law

Since Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine earlier in the year, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has appealed to the US and NATO on several occasions to create a no-fly zone over the country.

In a fervent address to Congress in a joint session earlier in the year, Zelensky reiterated that it was critical for NATO and its allies to step in and protect the skies over Ukraine in a bid to put to an end the incessant artillery fire and airstrikes from Russian armed forces.

This article explores what no fly zones are and why the US or NATO won’t establish one over Ukraine.

What Is a No Fly Zone?

No-fly zones are predetermined sections of airspace where military forces restrict access to all other forms of aircraft. When one or more countries enact one, they are essentially taking responsibility for monitoring the airspace in question and suppressing and eliminating any aircraft that violates these boundaries.

For NATO to establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine, it would mean that US or NATO pilots would be flying military jets over the country, patrolling the skies with specific orders to shoot down any unauthorized aircraft that enters Ukrainian airspace. This move would, in turn, create a situation where US or NATO pilots are engaged in direct combat with Russian pilots.

How Is a No Fly Zone Enforced?

The concept of imposing a no-fly zone is nothing new. It has been around for more than three decades and has been established a total of three times in history. As a result, a standard modus operandi is yet to be established and enforced.

The first thing to consider would be the source of justification for NATO or the US to impose a no-fly zone. Who gives the green light to impose a no-fly zone over a country?

For starters, the UN Charter’s Chapter 7, Article 42 indicates that the UN has the legal authority to impose blockades and other operations by land, sea, or air forces. These strategies are employed when all other attempts to resolve a conflict that threatens international peace have failed.

With that in mind, to establish a no-fly zone, the first step involves obtaining a mandate from the UN Security Council, which is made up of 15 member states. This process usually requires some form of deft diplomacy, given the fact that any of the five permanent Security Council member states, namely, the US, the UK, China, Russia, and France, can veto the action, effectively blocking it.

For instance, Russia and China blocked the move when a mandate was sought to establish a no-fly zone over Libya. However, they were later persuaded to abstain from voting for the action to continue.

Why a No Fly Zone Cannot Be Established Over Ukraine Airspace

In the case of Ukraine, establishing a no-fly zone over the country’s skies would be impossible to do since Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security Council. For this reason, any attempt to pass a Ukraine no-fly zone resolution will most certainly be vetoed by Russia.

A March 2022 research report released by the UK House of Commons (the UK’s version of the US Congress) indicates that a no-fly zone resolution can indeed be established provided that the UN Security Council receives consent from the country whose airspace it seeks to protect. In other words, if the Ukrainian government authorized NATO to cordon off access to its airspace, then a no-fly zone over the country can be established.

Once the issue of authority has been established, the question then becomes: What are the specific conditions imposed on the no-fly zone order? To better understand how this would work, let’s examine the conditions of the 2011 no-fly zone resolution passed with regard to the Libyan airspace.

The UN Security Council banned all flights into and out of the Libyan skies except for humanitarian flights on missions to deliver food and medical supplies or evacuate foreign nationals from conflict-plagued regions.

The conditions set forth also allowed UN member states to enforce similar restrictions over their respective airspaces provided that they notify the UN of such action and provide monthly reports detailing their actions and any airspace violation they may have encountered.

Additionally, member states were allowed to deny permission to planes departing from, overflying, or landing in their country’s airspace, if they had reason to believe that the aircraft in question was transporting mercenaries or weapons to Libya.

The Complexities of Establishing and Enforcing No Fly Zones

A major reason establishing a no fly zone over sovereign airspace is so complicated is that the UN and the countries that will offer personnel, missiles, aircraft, etc., all have to agree on specific rules of engagement (ROEs).

These ROEs need to spell out in great detail how and when to confront potential violators, how much and what kind of force should be used against them, and which entity gives the green light for such action to be taken should the situation present itself.

The specific measures taken to establish and enforce a no-fly zone over a country vary widely. For instance, in Iraq, allied air forces had fairly restrictive ROEs. In most cases, they were actively engaged in cat-and-mouse chases with violators, whittling them away when they crossed over into restricted airspace.

Things were vastly different in Libya. The UN issued broad authority, giving NATO expansive leeway to take “all necessary measures” to enforce the no-fly zone resolution.

The Bottom Line

Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed in no uncertain terms that any state that declared a no-fly zone over Ukraine would be deemed a party to the war, putting it in direct conflict with Russia.

From Putin’s remarks, what became immediately clear is that establishing a no-fly zone over Ukraine would do little to deter Russia from its devastating attacks on Ukrainian towns and cities. It is also worth mentioning that Russia has been using planes, rockets, and artillery that long-range fire missiles without ever having to leave Russian airspace.

Need more legal advice? Chat with a Laws101 attorney online right now.

Is Russia Committing War Crimes in Ukraine

Is Russia Committing War Crimes in Ukraine?

Legal AssistantCriminal Law, International Law

In 1945 the United Nations instituted a charter that made aggressive war (different from defensive war) illegal in international law. Based on the charter’s provisions, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine falls within the confines of aggression crimes.

In the Nuremberg trials of 1945-1946, senior leaders of Nazi Germany were convicted on charges of war aggression. The Tokyo war crime trials also had similar outcomes for the perpetrators.

The question then becomes, what are war crimes, and is Russia committing war crimes in Ukraine? Here’s everything you need to know.

What Is a War Crime?

The international law war crime definition is as follows: A serious violation of the customs or laws of war as outlined by international treaties and international customary law. The original definition has evolved tremendously since the end of World War I and now encompasses a wide range of criminal war activities.

In 1863, President Abraham Lincoln issued the “Lieber Code” – named after its author Francis Lieber – for distribution among military personnel. It contained a series of instructions for the United States armies on how to conduct themselves when out in the field. The Lieber Code became the first-ever systematic attempt to define military activities that would constitute war crimes.

For instance, according to the provisions of the Code, it was against the law of war for military personnel to commit wanton violence such as rape, murder, and maiming against individuals in the invaded country. It also made it illegal for the war victors to force enemy subjects into service. Any officer convicted of these crimes would face the death penalty.

The definition of war crimes has since been expanded and embedded in various international statutes, including those that gave rise to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and those used in war crime tribunals in Rwanda and Yugoslavia. Unlike the earlier versions, modern-day definitions of war crimes are broader and criminalize various actions taken by both soldiers and civilians.

At the heart of the definition of a war crime is the idea that any individual can be held criminally liable for the actions of their country or its military personnel. War crimes and crimes against humanity are among the most severe offenses in international law. They are so grave that there’s no limitation period for them.

Anyone who commits these crimes can be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted regardless of how much time has elapsed since the commission of the crimes.

List of War Crimes

War crimes are defined by the International Criminal Court statutes, Laws and Customs of War (an older area of law), the precedents set by the Nuremberg Tribunals, and the Geneva Conventions. With that in mind, there are generally four categories of war crimes:

1. Crimes Against Peace

Any act of aggression that involves planning, preparing, initiating, or waging war in violation of international agreements, assurances, or treaties constitutes a crime against peace. Additionally, participating in a conspiracy or common plan to accomplish any of the aforementioned activities is also considered a crime against peace.

2. Crimes Against the Laws and Customs of War

War crimes that fall in this category involve offenses or atrocities against individuals or property that go against the provisions of the laws and customs of war. Other war crimes include:

  • Murder, deportation to slave labor, or ill-treatment of the civilian population in the invaded territory
  • Murder or ill-treatment of the individuals taken as prisoners of war
  • Murder of hostages
  • Torture or inhumane treatment of hostages and the civilian population of the occupied territory, including conducting biological experiments
  • Plunder of private or public property
  • Wanton destruction of towns, villages, or cities
  • The devastation of the invaded territory without any military justification

3. Crimes Against Humanity

War crimes that fall into this category involve offenses and atrocities committed against the civilian population of an invaded territory both before and during the war. Crimes against humanity include enslavement, deportation, extermination, and murder.

Mass sexual enslavement, systemic rape, and other inhumane acts perpetrated by soldiers and civilians in the occupied territory also constitute crimes against humanity.

Additionally, persecuting any individual based on their political, religious, or racial affiliation in connection with or in the execution of any crime that falls within the ICC jurisdiction is considered a war crime.

Keep in mind that the violation question doesn’t have to violate the domestic laws of the country in which it was perpetrated for it to be deemed a war crime.

4. Genocide

Genocide is considered to be among the gravest crimes against humanity. It refers to the deliberate intent to extinguish, in whole or in part, a racial, ethnic, national, or religious group based on their affiliation. The term “genocide” is derived from a combination of the Greek word “genos,” which means race, and “cide,” which is Latin for “kill.”

Below is a list of acts that constitute genocide:

  • The forcible transfer of children belonging to the group to a different group
  • The imposition of measures designed to prevent the additional births among members of the group
  • The deliberate infliction of life conditions on the group to cause physical destruction in whole or in part
  • The deliberate infliction of grievous bodily or mental harm to individuals affiliated with the group
  • The mass killing of individuals belonging to the group

The targets of genocide are selected as victims purely and exclusively on the basis of their membership in the target group and not based on anything the individuals in question may have done. International law classified genocide as a crime even if it is not criminalized in the country in which it is perpetrated.

In short – Is killing civilians a war crime? Intentionally killing civilians, hostages, and prisoners of war all constitute war crimes.

What Happens When You Commit a War Crime?

The 1919 Treaty of Versailles was one of the first documents created to discuss war crimes. In the document, the authors came up with a list of war acts that would be deemed war offenses. They faced a lot of challenges when deciding what constitutes criminal activity and what does not.

There was even more dissension when deciding on the appropriate punishments for each war crime. During that period, the idea of establishing an International Court of Justice was proposed, but most of the participants did not support it.

After World War II, war crimes were discussed in greater detail, with member states belonging to the Allied Forces setting up international tribunals at Tokyo and Nuremberg.

These tribunals were charged with delivering judgment on offenses perpetrated during the war. The majority of the principles laid down by the tribunals remain at the heart of international criminal law as we know it today.

In 1946, the UN General Assembly adopted these principles. It started creating resolutions that defined punishments for individuals convicted of war crimes as well as crimes against humanity.

Punishment for War Crimes

close up of man using brown wooden gavel

Today, war crimes are punishable in two ways: Long-term imprisonment or death. For an individual to receive one of these sentences, the instance of the war crime they stand accused of must be tried at the International Criminal Court. The purpose of the ICC, which was established on July 1, 2002, is to hold war criminals accountable for their role in a war crime.

The court’s existence is based on a treaty supported by 108 countries. The nations that have signed and agreed to the ICC treaty are required to adhere to and respect the authority of the ICC. Soldiers from non-participating countries cannot be subjected to ICC trials even if they are found to have perpetrated war crimes.

For a case to be tried at the International Criminal Court, it needs to fall within any of the categories that fall under its jurisdiction. These categories include war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. While each of them is notably broad and includes several specific crimes, none of them include acts of terrorism.

Geneva Convention Rules on Weapons

In a bid to outlaw or restrict specific types of weapons and firearms used in war, a total of 51 countries negotiated the Inhumane Weapons Convention, also known as the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW). The idea behind it is to protect military personnel from sustaining inhumane injuries as well as to prevent civilians from getting killed or wounded by certain types of weapons.

The treaty, which was enacted in Geneva in December 1983, applied to mines, booby-traps, weapons designed to injure by dissipating tiny fragments, and incendiary weapons. Since that time, several additional provisions have been added, including bans on blinding laser weapons and rules to address the danger posed by leftover, unexploded munitions once active combat concludes.

Weapons Banned by the Geneva Convention

The CCW has several provisions annexed into various protocols. Any state that becomes a CCW member is required to sign on to a minimum of two protocols contained within the convention. It is not mandatory for them to sign on to all of them.

In the beginning, the scope of the CCW was limited to international armed conflicts. Parties to the convention later amended one of the protocols, expanding the scope to include intrastate conflicts. In 2001, this modification was applied to all the protocols in the entire convention.

Unfortunately, the convention does not have the means to ensure that state parties adhere to it, nor does it have verification mechanisms to ensure compliance. It also lacks a formal mechanism to resolve compliance issues.

Below is a list of the weapons banned by the Geneva Convention as spelled out in the various protocols:

  • Protocol 1 – Non-detectable fragments: Any weapon that can injure or kill through tiny fragments that are undetectable by x-rays.
  • Protocol 2 – Booby-traps, landmines, and other devices: Landmines and mines delivered by missiles, artillery, or aircraft have to be outfitted with self-destruct or self-deactivation mechanisms to disarm them after a certain period.
  • Protocol 3 – Incendiary weapons: Any weapon such as a thermobaric weapon designed to burn or set fire to its target.
  • Protocol 4 – Blinding lasers: Laser weapons that lead to permanent blindness.
  • Protocol 5 – Explosive remnants of armed conflict: Gravity bombs, grenades, artillery shells, and munitions that fail to explode as they’re supposed to, left unmanned by military forces.

Is It a War Crime to Use Nuclear Weapons?

Nuclear weapons have been deployed during warfare twice in history – in the 1945 bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In 1946 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the first-ever resolution that set up a Commission to deal with the issues surrounding the discovery and use of atomic energy.

Since then, several multilateral treaties have been established to prevent the testing and proliferation of nuclear weapons without necessarily curtailing the progress made in nuclear disarmament. Among these are:

  • The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
  • The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
  • The Partial Test Ban Treaty
  • The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

There are several potential uses of nuclear weapons that would fall in the realm of a war crime.

  1. If the properties of the weapon itself render it indiscriminate by nature;
  2. If its characteristics can result in unwarranted suffering or superfluous injury;
  3. If the weapon is used indiscriminately and directed at the civilian population.

If any of the above conditions are met, using nuclear weapons in warfare would constitute a war crime.

Is Russia Committing War Crimes in Ukraine?

There have been several reports of Russian mercenaries committing violations that go against the laws and customs of war. These atrocities have been committed against civilians in the Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Chernihiv regions of Ukraine.

Some of these include instances of summary executions, unlawful threats and violence meted against civilians, and rape. The individuals who perpetrated these abuses are guilty of committing war crimes and can be made to answer for their actions.

All parties involved in the armed conflict involving Russian and Ukrainian forces are required to adhere to the International Humanitarian Law (IHL) provisions, including customary international law and the protocols of the Geneva Conventions.

The laws of war prohibit the inhumane treatment of prisoners of war and civilians in custody, torture, all forms of sexual violence, willful killing, looting, and pillaging.

Russia has a legal obligation to the international community to investigate all alleged reports of war crimes committed by its military personnel.

Need more legal advice? Chat with a Laws101 attorney online right now.