@EL, your question "how can Hungary be trusted as a member of NATO and the EU when Orban has direct knowledge of Russian plans?” resonated with me. I found a 2019 article, “Can Turkey be Expelled from NATO? It’s Legally Possible, Whether or Not Politically Prudent,” on an online forum, Just Security, hosted by the New York University School of Law. The author, Aurel Sari, discusses the lack of suspension or expulsion provisions within the NATO charter. Interestingly, the UN Charter, the Statute of the Council of Europe , and the Treaty on EU do have such provisions.
In the draft NATO documents in 1948, Canada proposed a provision that would provide for suspension or expulsion to address the “coming into power of a communist-dominated government.” This was ultimately not included as the other countries resisted, thinking that the common shared values, principles, and resolve of the allies to “unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security” (preamble, North Atlantic Treaty) would suffice.
The only mechanism for removal then relies on the determination whether the member country’s behavior was a material breach under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The author concludes:
"Should the conditions for the existence of a material breach be satisfied, NATO’s member states would be entitled, by unanimous agreement, to suspend the operation of the treaty in whole or in part or to terminate it either in their relations with the defaulting state or among them all (Article 60(2) of the Vienna Convention). For these purposes, a unanimous decision of the North Atlantic Council, excluding the defaulting state, would suffice.”
While it has a not been done before, it does sound possible, but not easy, to suspend or expel a country. Would NATO take this route? Sadly, I don’t think they will.
Herein lies of the issues of alliances such as the UN. EU and NATO. To expel a member (such as Hungary) there has to be a breach that can be proven, but to do so also means that the alliance has failed. In particular, the EU wants to look like an exclusive club that everyone wants to join and play happy families. At present, all they can do is withhold funding from Hungary.
The League of Nations expelled Russia for invading Finland, and Germany left before they got expelled. The issue is that the UN charter did not provide sufficient safeguards for a country to be removed if they abused their veto power. People will look back and see how useless the UN was by allowing Russia to remain on the Security Council while invading another country.
As for NATO, they need to consider whether Hungary can be trusted because a betrayal would endanger all NATO members. Evidence is coming to light that Hungary did have prior knowledge of the invasion, in which case did Hungary have any responsibility to report this to NATO? Probably not, but the fact the country was entrusted with such information is a concern and NATO need to act because Hungary aren't exactly proactive defenders in this war.
Marjie - Thanks for your interesting comment. I'm Canadian but I was not aware of the 1948 proposed provision you speak of. It would appear Canadian authorities at that time were advanced in thinking about the possibility of a future communist-dominated government being a NATO member.
I didn't know this either until I looked into what it would take to eject someone. Too bad every other country thought it would be kumbaya alliance forever!
Even after His Holiness Pope Francis visited the Russian Ambassador to the Vatican in an effort to register his concerns and offered to go to Russia to meet Putin, this man of peace has been ignored. The Pope has also spoken to President Zelensky, but it would appear in speaking to the leader of the Russian Orthodox Church it is clear he, in blessing Putin's military machine, has become Putin's altar boy.
@EL, your question "how can Hungary be trusted as a member of NATO and the EU when Orban has direct knowledge of Russian plans?” resonated with me. I found a 2019 article, “Can Turkey be Expelled from NATO? It’s Legally Possible, Whether or Not Politically Prudent,” on an online forum, Just Security, hosted by the New York University School of Law. The author, Aurel Sari, discusses the lack of suspension or expulsion provisions within the NATO charter. Interestingly, the UN Charter, the Statute of the Council of Europe , and the Treaty on EU do have such provisions.
In the draft NATO documents in 1948, Canada proposed a provision that would provide for suspension or expulsion to address the “coming into power of a communist-dominated government.” This was ultimately not included as the other countries resisted, thinking that the common shared values, principles, and resolve of the allies to “unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security” (preamble, North Atlantic Treaty) would suffice.
The only mechanism for removal then relies on the determination whether the member country’s behavior was a material breach under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The author concludes:
"Should the conditions for the existence of a material breach be satisfied, NATO’s member states would be entitled, by unanimous agreement, to suspend the operation of the treaty in whole or in part or to terminate it either in their relations with the defaulting state or among them all (Article 60(2) of the Vienna Convention). For these purposes, a unanimous decision of the North Atlantic Council, excluding the defaulting state, would suffice.”
While it has a not been done before, it does sound possible, but not easy, to suspend or expel a country. Would NATO take this route? Sadly, I don’t think they will.
Herein lies of the issues of alliances such as the UN. EU and NATO. To expel a member (such as Hungary) there has to be a breach that can be proven, but to do so also means that the alliance has failed. In particular, the EU wants to look like an exclusive club that everyone wants to join and play happy families. At present, all they can do is withhold funding from Hungary.
The League of Nations expelled Russia for invading Finland, and Germany left before they got expelled. The issue is that the UN charter did not provide sufficient safeguards for a country to be removed if they abused their veto power. People will look back and see how useless the UN was by allowing Russia to remain on the Security Council while invading another country.
As for NATO, they need to consider whether Hungary can be trusted because a betrayal would endanger all NATO members. Evidence is coming to light that Hungary did have prior knowledge of the invasion, in which case did Hungary have any responsibility to report this to NATO? Probably not, but the fact the country was entrusted with such information is a concern and NATO need to act because Hungary aren't exactly proactive defenders in this war.
Agreed.
Marjie - Thanks for your interesting comment. I'm Canadian but I was not aware of the 1948 proposed provision you speak of. It would appear Canadian authorities at that time were advanced in thinking about the possibility of a future communist-dominated government being a NATO member.
I didn't know this either until I looked into what it would take to eject someone. Too bad every other country thought it would be kumbaya alliance forever!
Yes, it's unfortunate the proposal didn't receive the support it deserved.
Even after His Holiness Pope Francis visited the Russian Ambassador to the Vatican in an effort to register his concerns and offered to go to Russia to meet Putin, this man of peace has been ignored. The Pope has also spoken to President Zelensky, but it would appear in speaking to the leader of the Russian Orthodox Church it is clear he, in blessing Putin's military machine, has become Putin's altar boy.