Abstract

   This article aims to derive a different interpretation of the Ukranian war, examining the tension between power, and norms. It considers the ethics of domination, pointing out the limitations of war conceived as im-moral, non-moral, and moral, and attempt to re-approach to the war based on Immoralismus.

   For a normative review of the case of the Ukrainian war, this article focuses on just war theory, that is, the debate on pacifism, realism, and justice, not focusing on the international relations theories. In particular, international law and norms are mainly considered as the tool of this article, because the emergence of the modern sovereign state system influenced the normative institutionalization of war, i.e., the formation of international law. Primarily reviewed for the war in Ukraine is jus cogens. This study sheds light on the principle of non-aggression in Article 2 (4) and (7) of the UN Charter and the principle of self-determination, another erga omnes by Article 1(2).

   The previous analytical framework reveals various forms of contradiction in the Ukrainian war. The function of ‘hierarchical international law’ enforced and interpreted by power and the discriminatory application of its principles only signify an institutionalized norm as a tool to liberate the guilt of violence through moral norms for the powerful states. Nevertheless, violence and war cannot be posited as a natural act of human beings and non-morality to stop the war.

   This article attempts to show the possibility to avoid this dilemma through Immoralismus as an alternative, By this alternative imagination to dismantle the ethics of power, this study attempts to develop how norms should be constituted in the era of unstable transition such as liberation and public politics and post-colonialism.

For full access to the article, please visit the following site of The  Korean Association of International Studies.

https://www.kaisnet.or.kr/

*This article is written in Korean.