Senior Fellow Tim Potier Speaks on Russia, Azerbaijan, and the Rule of Law
By Rosalinde Nebiolo, MALD 25 Candidate, The Fletcher School
Democratic backsliding is becoming increasingly frequent across the world. International law scholars are questioning how this growing trend impacts international institutions, conflict resolution, and the trajectory of nations. Tim Potier, Senior Fellow with the Center for International Law and Governance at The Fletcher School, has taught a wide range of law classes in multiple countries, including Russia, Cyprus, and the UK. During his time at Fletcher, he has been working on a book about the rule of law. In an interview with the Russia and Eurasia Program on April 17, 2024, he discussed his experiences and perspectives on current conflicts.
RN: How was your time teaching in Russia? How did your life change when the war broke out in Ukraine?
TP: If circumstances were different, I would fly back tomorrow. There are friends there I miss very much. It is helped by the fact I have been working on this country since [doing] my Ph.D. I have been working on Russia for a little over 30 years. I was well looked after during my time there until I resigned from my position at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations in 2022. It is the truth, and it must be said that I was never asked to teach in a certain way, including in terms of content. I was sensitive to the country and institution I was working in. But I was teaching courses that covered very controversial grounds. There was academic freedom, although I was waiting for that occasion to occur. So, I only have happy memories there.
RN: What impact does the recent crisis in Nagorno-Karabakh have on the rules-based order?
TP: Let us go back to the beginning. I do not think Ilham Aliyev, the president of Azerbaijan, was ever minded to compromise. I think his father would have been willing to compromise if he lived longer, which would have left Karabakh with a high level of autonomy. I do not think he was ever of that view. In that sense, I do not think Armenia missed out on any opportunities. It was a horrible defeat for the Armenian people. One of the basic principles [of international law] is the territorial integrity of states. Mindful of this dichotomy of territorial integrity but also self-determination. I have said previously that if there is to be a peace treaty, it is better for Armenia to withdraw these cases before international courts and tribunals. The process may bankrupt Armenia and leave the nation vulnerable to another war if Azeri individuals mobilize for redress for damage to property [from the attacks].
RN: How can the West find a way to cooperate with Russia on arms control, nuclear nonproliferation, climate change, and other issues of mutual concern despite the war in Ukraine?
TP: I think our approach should be that occupied Ukrainian territory needs to be liberated. We should have had a more unified approach in the last few years. For some nations, there was a complete break from Russia. Others did not completely isolate, but the relationship with Russia was down to the bone. It would have sent a stronger message. The only language Russians know and respect is force. They see us as soft and irresolute. Nevertheless, we have made endless mistakes due to poor information about the people, the country, and their raison d’etre. We [should] make it clear to Russians, despite what their great writers used to say about Kyiv, that they must leave. On the other hand, we want to be partners and, maybe one day, allies.
Why is that vital? Because the West is on the defensive. Ukraine can be a member of NATO, but we will have to make compromises. Making sure Russia is being brought into the fold at the same time will work because they feel under siege. The world wars haunt them in ways we do not understand. They have to reconcile themselves with what Russia is geographically, and they have not done that yet. They have not moved past the Soviet Union. They have not made that psychological adjustment. Russians who do not watch state news on television and are below a certain age have a different approach. It is where the future lies.
RN: How can the international community bridge the gap between the current disorder and the ideals it aims to uphold?
TP: I do not think there is much the UN can do [for the Russia-Ukraine war]. I think it needs to be [solved through] bilateral or small regional groupings. I would not throw the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe away. I think it has a future, and hopefully, in time, it can be revitalized again. The international community has not enabled the UN [Security Council] to do such things. We are not there yet, but I hope one day we can be. I do believe we need to rely increasingly on the UN General Assembly.
RN: What is something that you found memorable during your time at Fletcher?
TP: It is not specifically a Fletcher thing, but I like how open and friendly Americans tend to be—straightforward and direct. As a Brit, we tend to be like an iceberg. It is more about what you do not see. We can be too overly polite, and it works to our detriment.