The struggle between oppression and justice has characterised the very history of mankind since its advent. The dichotomy, however, has come to represent the most serious, vital and relevant challenge to this age. Human suffering in Chechnya presents the world with a moral dilemma which threatens the very fabric of contemporary international civilisation. At stake in Chechnya is the very essence of international law and its ability to respond to widespread human suffering. An examination of international law is important for two reasons. First, to illustrate the clear position of Chechnya under contemporary international law and, second, to highlight the global community's hypocrisy in not recognising these basic norms.

Independence

At the heart of the conflict in Chechnya is the Chechen claim for independence. Russia has unequivocally and unambiguous stated that it is not prepared to even consider such a possibility. Under international law, however, the question of independence is governed by the inherent principles of "self-determination". This right is enshrined in the UN Charter as a cornerstone of international order and is also clearly defined in the Declaration On Granting Independence to Colonial Countries and Nations. The very concept of state sovereignty stems from the principle that every people have the inherent right to develop in the way they want. Self-determination underlines the right of all people to shape their destiny, even through succession- especially where their land was annexed by a foreign colonial power.

Russia remains the only colonial dinosaur that survives in the modern world. Since annexing much of the Caucuses in the nineteenth century by conquest, Russia has tried to persuade the world that Chechnya is an integral part of Russia. But Chechnya is no more Russia than Pakistan is England, or Algeria or Vietnam France. As Russia embarks on a new chapter in its volatile history, it must be mature enough to allow the inevitable process of de-colonialisation to take place smoothly.

An “internal” matter?

In an attempt to justify its massive use of military force in quashing the freedom movement, Russia has stated that the conflict is an internal matter, in which it is free to act as it wishes without interference from outside. Under international law such a view is not only misleading but blatantly wrong. State sovereignty in contemporary international law no longer tolerates the idea that a state is free to deal with its population in any manner it sees fit.

As early as 1947 the United Nations General Assembly took issue with the violation of human rights in Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania. The Franco regime in Spain was next on the agenda and so was the question of the treatment of the black population of South Africa. In all cases the General Assembly would not yield to claims of the member states that the questions raised were those subject to their exclusive jurisdiction. Like Russia, these states claimed that the international treatment of their conflicts violated their sovereign rights.

More recently and much more importantly, sovereignty has not been accepted as barring the international community from concerning itself with violations of human rights in modern conflicts around the globe. In 1992 the Security Council of the United Nations declared, in Security Council Resolution 688, that the suffering of the Kurdish population was not an "internal" affair of Iraq but in fact constituted a "threat to international peace and security". The same justification was used by the multi-lateral force that intervened in Somalia. Resolution 794 of the Security Council declared that widespread human suffering could no longer be regarded as an "internal" affair of Somalia. Even in Liberia the civil war was declared a "threat to international peace and security" because of the gross violations of human rights. Equally in Bosnia and Rwanda the international community accepted that gross human rights abuses can no longer be justifiably regarded as solely matters of domestic jurisdiction.

Hence, in the context of contemporary international relations, Russia cannot use the principle of sovereignty to imply absolute state power in internal or external affairs. Gross abuses of human rights in Chechnya transcend national boundaries and represent a moral and political imperative for the involvement of the international community. Though the modern construction of sovereignty implies the ability to interact in international relations as a legal personality, it does not grant that the state has an inherent right of genocide against its own people or the right to treat its citizens however it may wish. In any case, Islam demands that the Ummah must respond to the suffering of Muslims no matter what side of the national fence they stand.

War crimes

As a consequence of accepting that the conflict in Chechnya is not merely an internal matter for Russia, the question of responsibility for the atrocities and massacres arises. Russia has used weapons of mass destruction outlawed by international law and it has also made no distinction between combatant and non-combatant- a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions. Moreover, the indiscriminate killings, torture at "filtration" camps and the targeting of civilian populations is a clear abuse of all the principles of international law and order.

Russia has justified its massive use such military force by suggesting that the international laws prohibiting such tactics only apply to formal war. However, such logic is blatantly inconsistent with international law. The Geneva Conventions were held to be applicable by the international community in the "internal" conflicts in Rwanda and in Bosnia. Moreover, the use of illegal weapons of mass destruction are prohibited by customary international law even where a formal state of war does not exist. Even more clearly the International Criminal Court for War Crimes in Bosnia declared in the Tadic case that those individuals who institute aggression, even within a nation state, will be held responsible for their acts under international law.

Conclusion

If international law is to survive as a force capable of creating order in a world of chaos, the international community must respond to the widespread human suffering in Chechnya. But with the United Nations acting as if the conflict was invisible and Muslim states remaining silent as the atrocities continue- the only hope for the Chechens remains in their ability to defend themselves. If intentional law does not rise to the challenge in the killing fields of Chechnya, it must prepare to be blown away in a cloud of its own dust and dreams.