The United States may transfer $300 billion of frozen assets of the Russian Federation to Ukraine. In this case, the rule may apply: the principle of inviolability of assets may not apply against a state that violates international law.
Journalist Bret Stevens writes about it for The New York Times.
Russia's frozen assets are more than twice the amount of U.S. spending on Ukraine, including military aid.
According to the journalist, according to the study, the lead author of which is Harvard professor Larry Tribe, it is said that the US president, in accordance with the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), has the right to transfer frozen assets of the Russian Federation to Ukraine.
Tribe's study notes that there is a well-established doctrine of "countermeasures" in international law, i.e., actions that may otherwise violate international law but are lawful "insofar as the actions are taken against another state for an internationally wrongful act." The principle is simple: violators of international law do not have the right to veto punishment for their violations.
Putin has been recognized as a war criminal, and Russia has been recognized as an aggressor. In this case, simply unfreezing and returning Russia's assets would be a strange decision. The money should be spent on the reconstruction of Ukraine, however, if it is transferred now, it can also accelerate Ukraine's victory, the article says.
"The IEEPA explicitly states that the president can 'investigate,' 'block,' 'regulate,' 'direct and coerce,' 'annulle,' and 'prevent or prohibit' property transfers," the study said.
To recap, Europe wants to confiscate Russian assets for the reconstruction of Ukraine – which country can be the first.