Alessandra Silveira [Editor of this blog, Coordinator of Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence “Digital Citizenship and Technological Sustainability” (CitDig), University of Minho]
In the week marking the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, a new book by Francisco Pereira Coutinho, Professor of public international law and European constitutional law at NOVA University Lisbon, was launched in Portugal. I had the pleasure of presenting the work on February 26, together with Pedro Froufe, editor of this blog. Right at the beginning of the book, entitled “Guerra, mentiras e direito internacional”[1] – which directly translates to English as “War, lies and international law” –, the author explains what his main motivation was: he wanted to tell the story of the invasion of Ukraine from the perspective of an expert in international law. He then gathered the questions that his colleagues and journalists had asked him – as he is also a commentator for CNN Portugal – and the result is, in my view, a compelling and courageous manifesto in defence of international law.
As the metaphor on the book cover says, international law does not cease to exist because it is violated, just as grammar does not disappear because someone writes poorly. However, continuous violations of the rules can render them meaningless. This is because law (in general) is an abstraction – it only works when those subject to the rules recognise their legitimacy and comply with them, above all because they understand that it is worth maintaining peace, security, order and justice. But in the (specific) field of international law, the weaknesses of the law are more evident, because the recipients of the rules are sovereign states, which, if they have sufficient strength to do so, simply abandon their moral compass and cease to comply with the agreed rules – and who is going to rise up against brute force?
In this scenario, international law loses any effective normative force, being subverted as an instrument serving geopolitical purposes. Moreover, international law has been systematically invoked by Russia to (supposedly) justify and legitimise its acts of violence. This is precisely why Francisco Pereira Coutinho’s book is so important, to ensure that the “law of the jungle” does not prevail in international relations, not even (and especially not) in times of war.
As (then) Advocate General Poiares Maduro recalled in his conclusions in the Kadi case before the CJEU,[2] “it is when the cannons roar that we especially need the laws”. Moreover, it is the rules of international law that have legitimised military aid to Ukraine, aimed at repelling Russia’s brutal aggression – which has now been going on for four years, against all expectations. That is why Francisco Pereira Coutinho does not mince his words: he argues that the war in Ukraine is a war of conquest and annexation, in flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter. There is an aggressor (Russia) and there is a victim of aggression (Ukraine) – and this must be stated emphatically to those who seek to reward the aggressor by recognising territorial annexations by force.
But beyond international law and war, the title of the work has a third theme: lies. This is because lies have always been a weapon of war. So much so that Hannah Arendt, in her text on “truth and politics”,[3] argues in defence of factual truth, drawing on the question of culpability for the outbreak of the First World War. Although the blame for World War I was a controversial topic in 1920, no one would have said that Belgium invaded Germany. To erase from collective memory the fact that on the night of 4 August 1914, German troops crossed the Belgian border, it would have been necessary to have a monopoly of power over the entire civilised world. However, Hannah Arendt warned that such a monopoly of power is far from inconceivable – and Arendt could not even have predicted the disinformation on social media…
Of course, opinions may differ widely; it is equally true that each generation can reinterpret the facts – or rearrange the facts according to its own perspective. But no one has the right to subvert the factual truth – and the factual truth is that there was an invasion of Ukraine. That is why Francisco Pereira Coutinho separates “facts” from “propaganda” in the war in Ukraine, to identify fabrications and manipulations. The author confronts allegations with verifiable facts and applicable international law. And what methodology was adopted for this purpose?
The method was inspired by Alan Dershowitz’s work on the Israeli Palestinian conflict[4] and is basically based on what follows. Each chapter opens with a question, followed by an allegation made by one of the belligerents – almost always Russia. This allegation is supported by statements from relevant actors in the context of the war. Finally, the allegation is refuted by the reality of the situation, on the basis of sound legal reasoning, in accordance with applicable international law. The result of this endeavour is appealing, as the discourse is understandable even to those unfamiliar with law, were it not for the author’s background in teaching, which enables him to simplify what is complex. Therefore, the narrative that the author presents to us, namely the story of the invasion of Ukraine, is woven together through questions and answers.
Forty-six questions were selected, and I will take the liberty of identifying some of my favourites: Are Russians and Ukrainians one and the same people? Is Crimea Russian? Can Russia’s annexation of Crimea be recognised? Why did the Minsk Agreements fail? Is NATO enlargement an existential threat to Russia? Could the separatist republics of Donbas secede from Ukraine? Could Russia intervene in self-defence? Was there a duty to intervene on humanitarian grounds? Do the self-determination referendums legitimise the Russian annexations? Can Ukraine attack and occupy Russian territory? Can Ukraine be supported militarily? Can the European Union ban Russian media? Can frozen Russian assets be transferred to Ukraine? Can Russia be expelled from the Security Council? Has Russia been expelled from the Council of Europe? Can the International Criminal Court try Russian citizens? Can Putin be arrested under the International Criminal Court warrant? Can Putin be tried in a special court? Is Russia committing genocide? Is the Russian minority being discriminated against?
In any case, to pique the interest of Portuguese-speaking readers – and show some generosity to those who cannot read Portuguese – I will focus on three issues that I consider essential:
1) The first, discussed in chapter 34 of the book, asks the following question: “Was there a massacre in Bucha?”.[5] This chapter clearly reveals the extent to which, during war, violence carries with it an additional element of arbitrariness – as Hannah Arendt had already said. Moreover, in no other scenario does good or bad luck (Fortune, as Machiavelli put it) play such a decisive role in human affairs.[6] To answer the question, “Was there a massacre in Bucha?”, the author begins with the following allegation: “The massacre in Bucha was nothing more than a propaganda stunt carried out by Ukraine with the aim of derailing the peace negotiations with Russia that were taking place in Istanbul.” This claim is followed by a number of statements, among which I have selected the one made by the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation on 3 April 2022: “The photos and videos from Bucha are yet another episode staged by the Kiev regime for the Western media, just as happened in Mariupol with the maternity hospital, as well as in other cities.” However, the reality is as follows: “The Russian army tortured and summarily executed dozens of people in Bucha in March 2022.” The reasoning is lengthy, but I will reproduce a few excerpts: “The Russian army reached the gates of Kyiv. Between 5 and 30 March 2022, it occupied Bucha, a suburb located five kilometres from the Ukrainian capital. Around 5,000 civilians remained in the besieged city. Upon entering liberated Bucha on 2 April 2022, the international press reported the existence of dozens of decomposing corpses in the open air. Many of the bodies showed signs of shooting and torture. In the following months, Ukrainian authorities recovered a total of 422 bodies, most of them exhumed from mass graves and makeshift graves. The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine has documented in detail dozens of summary executions in Bucha. (…) The massacre in Bucha was not an isolated case. It is part of a pattern of systematic violence that characterises Russian military conduct, marked by summary executions, torture, forced labour, arbitrary detentions, forced displacement and indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on civilians and civilian property, which caused, between 24 February 2022 and the beginning of June 2025, at least 13,580 civilian deaths – including 716 children – and 34,115 civilian injuries, including 2,173 children. (…) The European Court of Human Rights, which examined only violations that occurred up to 16 September 2022, highlighted in particular the Russian attacks on maternity hospital no. 3 and on hundreds of civilians sheltering in a clearly marked theatre in Mariupol in March 2022, as well as on a crowd of civilians being evacuated at the Kramatorsk railway station in April 2022. In 2024, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for four senior Russian military officers (…) for war crimes and crimes against humanity, for allegedly ordering deliberate attacks on civilians and civilian property in Ukraine, including critical energy infrastructure.”
2) The second issue that I consider essential is the one addressed in chapter 42, which raises the following question: “Can Ukraine join NATO and the European Union?”. This question is particularly relevant to readers of this blog, because it presents a future perspective for Ukraine within the context of an integrated Europe. To answer the question, “Can Ukraine join NATO and the European Union?”, the author begins with the following allegation: “Ukraine cannot join NATO or the European Union while it is involved in a territorial conflict with Russia.” This assertion is followed by a number of statements, from which I have selected the following by Viktor Orbán on 25 June 2025: “If the European Union accepts Ukraine as a member, this will result in open warfare at this point in time and, after a ceasefire, will entail a continuing risk of war between Europe and Russia.” However, the reality is as follows: “The Russian occupation does not in itself constitute an obstacle to Ukraine’s accession to NATO and the European Union. Germany joined NATO despite part of its territory being occupied by the Soviet Union. Cyprus is part of the European Union despite part of its territory being occupied by Turkey.” The reasoning is once again lengthy, so I will reproduce only an excerpt: “The fact that Ukraine has a territorial dispute with Russia, which is illegally occupying several Ukrainian regions, does not in itself constitute a legal obstacle to Ukraine’s accession to NATO or the European Union. The internationalisation of the conflict can be avoided if the mutual defence clauses provided for in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty and Article 42(7) of the Treaty on European Union are expressly limited to the territory under the effective control of the Ukrainian state, similar to the solutions adopted, in different contexts for Germany and Cyprus. This possibility, however, requires the stabilisation of the battlefront, which can only be achieved – as was the case in Cyprus and Germany – through a ceasefire (de facto or de jure) or, ideally, through the conclusion of an armistice agreement.”
3) Finally, the third issue that I consider crucial is the one raised in chapter 46, which asks the following question: “Will Russia trade peace for territory?”. This chapter is noteworthy because the author envisages peace, but explains to what extent the recognition of the “new territorial realities” – that is, Russia’s annexation of the Ukrainian regions of Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia – would not be sufficient for a lasting cessation of hostilities, as for Putin this does not eliminate the “root causes of the conflict”, condensed into the triad of “neutralisation, demilitarisation and denazification” of Ukraine. To answer the question, “Will Russia trade peace for territory?”, the author begins with the following allegation: “There will be peace when Ukraine recognises Russian sovereignty over the «new territorial realities».” This allegation is followed by several statements, among which I have selected one made by Vladimir Putin on 14 June 2024: “As soon as they declare in Kiev that they are not ready to (recognise the new territorial realities) and begin an effective withdrawal of troops (from the occupied regions), and also officially declare that they are abandoning their intention to join NATO, we will immediately give the order to cease fire and start negotiations – immediately, without delay.” However, the reality is as follows: “Exchanging peace for territory rewards the aggressor and does not resolve the «root causes of the conflict», which are identity-based. It merely postpones the solution to the problem.” The reasoning for this position is also extensive, of which I will share an excerpt: “On the other side of the Atlantic, the Trump administration is considering recognising Crimea in exchange for persuading Putin to agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine. This strategy of exchanging peace for territory will not work, as it only satisfies Moscow’s secondary territorial interest, and not its strategic identity goal of keeping Ukraine within its sphere of influence. (…) The Kremlin demands, above all, that the «root causes of the conflict» be resolved. And what is the main cause of the conflict? The decision of the Ukrainian people to associate themselves with the European Union and to establish themselves as a democratic state governed by the rule of law.”
In the four years since the invasion of Ukraine, it is important to remember that without values, everything is equally valid – as Albert Camus put it. If we believe in nothing, if nothing has meaning, if we cannot affirm any values, then everything is permitted and nothing matters. Therefore, there is neither good nor evil – and Hitler was neither wrong nor right. If we think that nothing has meaning, we must conclude that whoever wins is right. Because if nothing is either true or false, if nothing is either good or bad, then brute force prevails, where there is only room for masters and slaves. To this extent, the freedom we are challenged to achieve these days is that of not lying – for only then will we be able to identify the reasons for living and dying.[7]
[1] Francisco Pereira Coutinho, Guerra, mentiras e direito internacional (Lisboa: Zigurate, 2026).
[2] Opinion of Mr Advocate General Poiares Maduro delivered on 16 January 2008, Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities, joined cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P, ECLI:EU:C:2008:11.
[3] Hannah Arendt, Entre o passado e o futuro, 9th edition (São Paulo: Perspectiva, 2022).
[4] Alan Dershowitz, The case for Israel (Wiley, 2003).
[5] All quoted excerpts of this book have been freely translated by the Author of this post.
[6] Hannah Arendt, Sobre a violência (Lisboa: Relógio d’água, 2014).
[7] Albert Camus, Conferências e discursos (1937-1958) (Porto: Livros do Brasil, 2022).
Picture credit: by Bruno Reynaud de Sousa.
Official Blog of UNIO 