By: Antonio Dey | HGP Nightly News |
Team 4, led by Miss Ellen Gopaul, captured top honors at the International Law Debate Competition after successfully arguing that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine constituted a lawful exercise of pre-emptive self-defence under international law.
Gopaul, who was also named Best Advocate, delivered a powerful presentation grounded in international legal precedent and scholarly reasoning. Drawing on Malcolm Shaw’s text on International Law, she asserted that the concept of imminence in modern warfare must adapt to contemporary realities.
“With tremendous speed, weapons can annihilate within minutes; imminence today begins the moment the radar guiding the missile locks on. Russia therefore had no legal duty to endure a first strike before defending itself,” she argued.
Gopaul maintained that Russia’s actions between February 24 and 28, 2022, satisfied the dual tests of necessity and proportionality, principles recognized in customary international law. She further contended that the intervention mirrored precedents set by the United States and Israel in previous conflicts — actions not branded as unlawful aggressions.
“The difference,” Gopaul said, “is not in law but in political alignment. If those acts were tolerated, consistency demands that Russia’s intervention—facing comparable immediacy—be assessed under the same legal lens.”
Gopaul’s teammates, Aldercy Peters and Judah Prescott, supported the proposition with well-structured arguments on sovereignty, self-defence, and state responsibility.
Representing the opposition, Team 3—comprised of Nathalia Henry, Britney Benjamin, and Gabriel Fiedtkou—countered that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine did not meet the legal threshold for pre-emptive self-defence. They insisted that no credible evidence existed to prove that Ukraine posed an imminent threat.
Opposition speaker Thomasa Auguste of Team 9 reinforced this position, stating:
“The desire of a country to join NATO does not prove there was an immediate threat to Russia. NATO’s diplomatic engagement with former Soviet states did not amount to preparations for war.”
She further argued that Russia’s military actions failed the proportionality test, pointing out that if the threat were as grave as claimed, NATO would have responded in kind — which did not occur.
“Pre-emptive self-defence requires the threat to be so imminent that no alternative exists. Russia has failed to demonstrate such a circumstance,” she concluded.
Meanwhile, Jayda Jeune, representing Team 7 for the opposition, presented a nuanced interpretation of the doctrine, acknowledging that anticipatory self-defence can be lawful in cases of clear and immediate danger. However, she maintained that Russia’s justification fell short of the international legal standard.
“While the first speaker quoted Article 51 to argue that self-defence applies only after an armed attack, that’s an outdated interpretation. Modern threats are not always visible or direct—but proportionality and necessity remain the ultimate tests,” Jeune explained.
In the end, Team 4’s cohesive presentation, legal depth, and command of international jurisprudence secured them the win, with Ellen Gopaul earning special recognition for her clarity, composure, and command of complex legal arguments.
