G7 Discovers Experts Supporting the Legality of Russian Asset Theft : Analysis

A group of experienced public international lawyers and practitioners argue that seizing the frozen Russian sovereign funds, amounting to around €260 billion ($280 billion), would be a legitimate response to Russia’s unlawful actions in Ukraine. The lawyers from various countries, including the UK, US, Belgium, France, Germany, Japan, and the Netherlands, claim that such a seizure is justifiable under international law as compensation for Russia’s breach of fundamental international rules. They contend that while Western sanctions and asset freezes against Russia are lawful, any Russian reprisal would be illegal. The legal experts, including prominent figures like Olivier Corten, Philippe Sands, and Harold Hongju Koh, advocate for the confiscation of Russian assets, with concerns mainly focusing on the EU’s hesitation due to potential repercussions on the euro’s stability. Russia, on the other hand, challenges the legitimacy of these actions and has warned of severe countermeasures in response to any seizure attempts by the US and its allies.

Analysis:
The article presents a perspective advocated by a group of public international lawyers and practitioners arguing for the legitimate seizure of Russian sovereign funds as a response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine. The inclusion of experts from various countries lends credibility to their argument, showing a broad base of support. The legal basis for such a seizure is highlighted as compensation for Russia’s breach of international rules, stressing the legality of Western sanctions against Russia and claiming any Russian retaliation would be illegal.

The article relies on reputable figures in international law such as Olivier Corten, Philippe Sands, and Harold Hongju Koh, strengthening the argument’s credibility. It portrays a clear narrative of the experts advocating for the confiscation of Russian assets, highlighting concerns about the EU’s hesitation due to potential economic instability. The inclusion of Russia’s objection and warnings about countermeasures provides a balanced perspective.

However, the article’s presentation of facts needs to be critically examined, particularly regarding the potential repercussions on the euro’s stability. The article might be seen as biased towards supporting the seizure of Russian assets, as the experts’ arguments are emphasized without substantial counterarguments. Readers should be cautious of this one-sided presentation of information.

Given the political landscape and the prevalence of fake news, there is a risk that such articles could influence public perception by shaping a narrative that frames Russia as the aggressor and justifies punitive actions against it. The nuances of international law and diplomacy are complex, and simplifying the issue to the seizure of assets may not provide a comprehensive understanding of the situation. Readers should seek multiple sources and expert opinions to gain a broader perspective on the topic.

Source: RT news: G7 finds ‘experts’ to declare theft of Russian assets legal