Soviet aggression against Lithuania in 1940: ungrounded attempts of its justification under international law

Straipsnis skirtas svarbiausiems tarptautiniams teisiniams klausimams, susijusiems su 1940 m. sovietine agresija prieš Lietuvą. Jame nagrinėjami ir tarptautinės teisės požiūriu įvertinami Rusijos teisinėje literatūroje ir jos pareigūnų pareiškimuose pasitaikantys mėginimai pateisinti SSRS veiksmus prieš Lietuvą. Tokios pozicijos esmė buvo atspindėta oficialiame 2000 m. birželio 9 d. Rusijos Federacijos užsienio reikalų ministerijos pareiškime dėl Lietuvos Respublikos Seimo svarstyto įstatymo „Dėl SSRS okupacijos žalos atlyginimo“ projekto. Daugiausia dėmesio straipsnyje skiriama teiginiui, kad 1940 m. galiojusios tarptautinės teisės normos nedraudė tokių veiksmų, kokių buvo imtasi Lietuvos atžvilgiu, nes susiformavęs agresyvaus karo draudimas neva nereiškė draudimo grasinti jėga. Taip pat tiriama su šiuo teiginiu susijusi tezė apie Lietuvos sutikimą, kuris neva legalizavo prieš ją įvykdytus Sovietų Sąjungos prievartinius veiksmus. [...]. Savo išvadoms pagrįsti autorius naudoja sisteminį, lyginamąjį, istorinį, teleologinį, loginį ir kitus tyrimo metodus. Pagrindinė straipsnio išvada yra ta, kad ir pagal 1940 m. galiojusią tarptautinę teisę Sovietų Sąjungos veiksmai kvalifikuotini kaip agresija prieš Lietuvą, o Lietuvos sutikimas neturėjo jokios teisinės reikšmės, nes buvo išgautas prievarta. Ši išvada daugiausia grindžiama formalia ir sistemine tuometinių tarptautinių sutarčių analize, taip pat valstybių praktika bei Niurnbergo tarptautinio karinio tribunolo jurisprudencija, aiškinančia galiojusias tarptautinės teisės normas.The article deals with the most important international legal issues concerning the assessment of the 1940 Soviet aggression against Lithuania. The author exams and evaluates from the standpoint of international law the attempts to justify the Soviet acts which from time to time occur in Russian legal literature and statements of Russian officials. These attempts were concentrated in the 6 July 2000 official statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation concerning the beginning of deliberations by the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania of the draft Law on Compensation of the Damage Resulting from the Soviet Occupation. In the article the main attention is given to the claim that international law of that time did not prohibit the acts had been committed against Lithuania because, allegedly, the already emerged prohibition of aggressive war had not yet included the prohibition to threat by force. According to that position, this principle established by the 1928 Paris Treaty on the Renunciation of a War as a Means of National Policy (the Briand-Kellogg Pact) should be interpreted in its most narrow meaning as including only the direct use of military force by one state against another. The author also exams the related claim that, allegedly, Lithuania’s consent with the incursion of Soviet troops could legalise the coercive actions taken by the Soviet Union against Lithuania. The author raises strong arguments against and manifestly proves that such a way of legal interpretation is absolutely ungrounded. For instance, the author exams the norms of international law of that time and the relevant provisions of modern international law. The 1933 London Convention on the Definition of Aggression, as well as the bilateral Convention of the same content which was concluded in 1933 between Lithuania and the USSR, specifically pointed out that the definition of aggression had been elaborated in order to develop the principle of the prohibition of aggressive war (in the preamble of both treaties it was stressed that the Briand-Kellogg Pact prohibits any kind of aggression). Among the acts of aggression enumerated in Art.2 of the Lithuanian-Soviet treaty we can find the incursion of the armed forces into the territory of another State without a declaration of war. That is exactly the act committed by the USSR on 15 June 1940. With regard to Lithuania’s consent with the Soviet acts, the author of the article points out that it is enough to recall that the Nuremberg Tribunal evaluated the identical case of the 1938 annexation of Austria as an act of aggression. In this regard it is worth to quote the 1946 Judgement of the Tribunal, whereat the alleged Austria’s consent and even desire to unite with Germany was regarded as “really immaterial for the facts plainly prove that the methods employed to achieve the object were those of an aggressor. The ultimate factor was the armed might of Germany ready to be used if any resistance was encountered”. Besides, in 1938 the Soviet Union itself treated the Anschluss as an international crime, as well as a year later it particularly condemned the cases where annexations were camouflaged by the setting up of puppet “national” governments. [...