Kaliningrad and the Nuclear Warning: Would a NATO Blockade Be Lawful Under International Law?
Introduction
A NATO military blockade of Kaliningrad would not be lawful merely because the Russian exclave is strategically important, heavily militarized, or regarded as a security threat. Unless such an operation were authorized by the UN Security Council or supported by a valid basis in self-defense under international law, it would ordinarily fall within the prohibition on interstate force in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter (United Nations, 1945).
The issue became immediate on 30 September 2026, when Russia warned that an attempt by NATO states to isolate Kaliningrad could lead to direct armed conflict and the possible use of nuclear weapons. NATO publicly condemned the warning as irresponsible nuclear rhetoric (Reuters, 2026).
The term “blockade” requires legal precision. Restrictions on trade, rail transit, border crossings, or other forms of non-military access are not, simply because they limit movement, the same legal act as an armed operation preventing vessels from reaching Russian ports or coastlines. General Assembly Resolution 3314 expressly identifies the blockade of a state’s ports or coasts by another state’s armed forces as an act capable of constituting aggression, subject to the Resolution’s broader conditions and the Charter framework (United Nations General Assembly, 1974).
The Charter also recognizes circumstances in which coercive military action may be lawful. Article 42 empowers the Security Council to take military enforcement action, expressly including blockade, while Article 51 preserves the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs (United Nations, 1945). NATO’s Article 5 does not create an independent exception to Article 2(4); it ties collective defense to the right of self-defense recognized by Article 51 (North Atlantic Treaty, 1949).
Even where self-defense is available, the particular response must satisfy necessity and proportionality. The International Court of Justice has repeatedly treated those requirements as conditions governing the lawful exercise of self-defense (ICJ, 1986; ICJ, 2003).
Russia’s nuclear warning raises a distinct legal question. In its 1996 Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, the International Court of Justice held that the legality of a threat depends on whether the contemplated use of force would itself be lawful. A state cannot lawfully threaten force that it would have no legal right to employ, and the existence of a right of self-defense does not displace the separate constraints imposed by the Charter and the law of armed conflict (ICJ, 1996).
The legal position surrounding Kaliningrad must consequently be assessed through separate inquiries. The first concerns the lawfulness of initiating a military blockade: the nature of the proposed measure, the existence or absence of an armed attack, and the legal authority relied upon for the use of force. The second concerns the legality of Russia’s threatened response.
If an armed conflict existed, the conduct of any blockade would also be governed by the law of naval warfare and the rules protecting civilians. Those rules apply independently of the question of whether the initial resort to force was lawful (ICJ, 1996).
1. Kaliningrad: Exclave, Territory, and Military Position
Kaliningrad is a Russian exclave on the Baltic Sea, separated from mainland Russia and bordered by Lithuania to the north and east and Poland to the south (Presidential Library, 2026). Both neighboring states are members of NATO: Poland joined the Alliance in 1999 and Lithuania in 2004 (NATO, n.d.; NATO, 2004). This geography makes access to the oblast unusually sensitive because communication with mainland Russia depends on maritime and air routes or transit across neighboring states.
The territory’s present status emerged from the settlement following the Second World War. Before 1945, Königsberg was the principal city of the German province of East Prussia. At the Potsdam Conference, the Allied powers agreed in principle to the Soviet proposal concerning the ultimate transfer of Königsberg and the adjacent area to the Soviet Union. The arrangement remained expressly subject to the final determination of territorial questions at a later peace settlement, and the United States and United Kingdom undertook to support the proposal at that settlement (Potsdam Conference, 1945).
Soviet administration followed. On 7 April 1946, the Königsberg region was constituted as an oblast within the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. On 4 July 1946, the city was renamed Kaliningrad and the oblast received the same name (Presidential Library, 2026). These measures incorporated the territory administratively into the Russian component of the Soviet Union.
The 1990 Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany did not itself transfer Kaliningrad to the Soviet Union. Its significance lies in the final settlement of Germany’s borders. Article 1 defined the external borders of united Germany as definitive and recorded Germany’s undertaking that it had no territorial claims against other states and would assert none in the future. The treaty entered into force on 15 March 1991 (Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, 1990).
Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Kaliningrad continued as part of the Russian Federation. It is now a constituent subject of the Federation, physically separated from the rest of the country by other states (Presidential Library, 2026). The disappearance of the Soviet territorial framework transformed that separation into a practical issue of international transit and access.
EU sanctions measures illustrate the consequences. European Commission guidance governing transit between Kaliningrad and the rest of Russia distinguishes road and rail transport and prohibits the transit of sanctioned military and dual-use goods (European Commission, 2022). Such arrangements create legal questions concerning movement and access without changing the territorial status of the oblast.
Russian military forces and facilities are also present in Kaliningrad, and the region retains substantial strategic importance. Lithuania’s 2026 National Threat Assessment describes continuing Russian military activity and the use of electronic-warfare capabilities in the oblast; Lithuanian defense authorities have also documented repeated Russian military flights between mainland Russia and Kaliningrad (VSD and AOTD, 2026; Lithuanian Ministry of National Defence, 2026). No fixed troop figure is necessary to establish that military role. The presence of Russian forces does not remove Kaliningrad from the protection of the general prohibition on interstate force in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter (United Nations, 1945).
2. What a NATO Blockade of Kaliningrad Would Mean
The phrase “Kaliningrad blockade” can refer to measures with very different legal consequences. An armed naval operation preventing vessels from entering or leaving Russian ports is not equivalent to economic sanctions, customs controls, closure of a land border, restrictions on civil aviation, or limits on rail traffic through Lithuania.
That distinction reflects the prevailing interpretation of “force” in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. The prohibition is generally understood to concern armed or military force rather than economic or political coercion, although non-military measures may still be regulated by other rules of international law (Svicevic, 2024). Transit restrictions and sanctions can consequently raise questions under EU law, treaty obligations, sanctions regimes, or trade law without automatically becoming uses of force under Article 2(4).
Kaliningrad provides a concrete example. European Commission guidance regulates transit through Union territory between the oblast and mainland Russia, distinguishing road and rail transport and prohibiting the transit of certain sanctioned goods, including military and dual-use items (European Commission, 2022). These restrictions can materially affect access to the exclave, but they are not for that reason an armed blockade.
A naval operation enforced by warships or other armed forces would fall into a different category. Its purpose would be to deny maritime access to Russian territory through military coercion. General Assembly Resolution 3314 reflects this distinction by referring specifically to the blockade of a state’s ports or coasts by the armed forces of another state (United Nations General Assembly, 1974).
The expression “NATO blockade” also requires institutional precision. NATO relies on forces provided by its member states for Alliance operations, while national governments decide whether to contribute those forces to particular missions (NATO, 2025). A blockade conducted under NATO auspices would consequently involve forces supplied by participating states. Those states would still require a lawful international basis for using force against Russia under the UN Charter.
3. Article 2(4), Blockade, and the Definition of Aggression
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter requires members to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations (United Nations, 1945). The International Court of Justice has also recognized the prohibition on the use of force as a rule of customary international law independent of the Charter as a treaty (Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, 1986).
A “use of force,” an “armed attack,” and an “act of aggression” are related but distinct legal concepts. Article 2(4) establishes the general prohibition. Article 51 addresses the right of self-defense if an armed attack occurs, and the ICJ has distinguished armed attacks from less grave forms of unlawful force (Nicaragua, 1986). Article 39, meanwhile, authorizes the Security Council to determine the existence of a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression (United Nations, 1945).
General Assembly Resolution 3314 is especially relevant to blockade. Article 3(c) identifies the blockade of the ports or coasts of one state by the armed forces of another as an act falling within the Definition of Aggression. Article 2 qualifies that list by allowing the Security Council to consider the surrounding circumstances, including whether the conduct is of sufficient gravity (United Nations General Assembly, 1974).
Resolution 3314 is not a treaty and does not establish an autonomous prohibition replacing Article 2(4). The General Assembly recommended that the Security Council take the Definition into account as guidance when determining whether an act of aggression exists. The ICJ later treated Article 3(g) as reflecting customary international law in Nicaragua, but that does not establish that every provision of Resolution 3314 has customary status. The customary-law status of the Definition as a whole remains disputed (Wilmshurst, 2008).
For Kaliningrad, the distinction has direct consequences. A military operation preventing vessels from reaching Russian ports corresponds closely to the conduct described in Article 3(c), whereas sanctions or restrictions on rail transit through Lithuania do not, without more, constitute that armed act. A peacetime maritime blockade initiated without Security Council authority or a valid basis in self-defense would consequently face the prohibition on interstate force in Article 2(4) (United Nations, 1945; United Nations General Assembly, 1974).
4. When Could a Blockade Be Lawful?
The legality of a blockade depends on the authority for resorting to force, not simply on the label attached to the operation. For the Kaliningrad scenario, the relevant Charter bases are enforcement action under Chapter VII and self-defense under Article 51. Neither gives states a general power to employ military force whenever another state is regarded as dangerous.
Military capability, strategic geography, hostile rhetoric, or political tension do not by themselves create an exception to Article 2(4). The Charter regulates when interstate force may be used, while the ICJ has consistently treated self-defense as subject to defined legal conditions rather than a general claim of security necessity (Nicaragua, 1986; Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo, 2005).
Chapter VII enforcement and self-defense rest on different legal foundations. The former operates through decisions of the Security Council. Article 51, by contrast, expressly preserves the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs. Claims that force may also be used before an attack has occurred raise the separate and contested question of anticipatory self-defense.
4.1 Security Council Authorization
Article 39 empowers the Security Council to determine the existence of a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and to decide what measures should follow. Article 41 concerns measures not involving armed force. If the Council considers those measures inadequate, Article 42 permits action by air, sea, or land forces and expressly identifies blockade as one possible form of enforcement action (United Nations, 1945).
A blockade implemented pursuant to a valid Chapter VII decision would thus have a legal basis distinct from unilateral action by NATO member states. Article 48 provides that measures required to carry out Security Council decisions may be implemented by all UN members or by some of them, as the Council determines (United Nations, 1945).
Participating states would remain bound by the terms of the relevant Security Council decision. The scope, targets, conditions, and duration of the mandate would determine what military measures had actually been authorized. A general claim that an operation contributes to international security could not substitute for such authority.
4.2 Self-Defense After an Armed Attack
Article 51 preserves the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs. In Nicaragua, the ICJ held that self-defense under customary international law is subject to necessity and proportionality and treated an armed attack as a necessary condition for the exercise of that right in the circumstances before the Court (Nicaragua, 1986).
Collective self-defense imposes an additional condition. The Court found no customary rule permitting a state to exercise collective self-defense without a request from the state claiming to have suffered the armed attack. It also considered whether the purported victim states themselves regarded the relevant conduct as armed attacks (Nicaragua, 1986). Those requirements would be directly relevant if NATO members sought to justify a blockade as assistance to an attacked ally.
The occurrence of an armed attack would not make every measure against Kaliningrad lawful. A blockade would still have to be necessary for the defensive purpose and proportionate to the attack. Its relationship to the attack, its scale and effects, and the availability of less extensive defensive measures would bear on that assessment.
Oil Platforms illustrates the limits of an asserted self-defense justification. The ICJ was not satisfied that the incidents relied upon by the United States established the necessary armed attack by Iran. It also concluded that the attacks on the Iranian oil platforms did not satisfy the requirements governing necessity and proportionality (Oil Platforms, 2003). An asserted right of self-defense does not, by itself, validate the particular target or form of force chosen.
A blockade imposed before an armed attack occurs would raise the disputed doctrine of anticipatory self-defense. Article 51 expressly refers to an armed attack having occurred, while some states maintain that customary international law permits defensive force where an attack is genuinely imminent. The United Kingdom has publicly adopted that position, but the scope and legal basis of anticipatory self-defense remain unsettled in international law (UK Attorney General, 2017; O’Meara, 2022).
Imminence cannot be reduced to generalized apprehension about another state. Military deployments, exercises, threatening statements, or broader strategic hostility may form part of the factual context, but they do not by themselves establish an imminent armed attack. Any claim to anticipatory self-defense would have to satisfy the demanding requirements attached to that doctrine, including the necessity of using force before the anticipated attack occurs (O’Meara, 2022).
5. NATO Article 5 and the Limits of Collective Defense
Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty does not establish an independent entitlement to use military force outside the UN Charter. Its text expressly connects collective defense with “the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51” of the Charter. An armed attack falling within Article 5 may trigger the allies’ treaty obligations, but it does not create a separate exception to Article 2(4) (North Atlantic Treaty, 1949).
Article 5 also leaves the form of assistance to each ally. A party must take the action it considers necessary to assist the attacked state, and that action may include armed force. The treaty does not require every member to adopt the same military response or to participate in every operation undertaken in collective defense (North Atlantic Treaty, 1949).
This distinction is important in relation to Kaliningrad. A qualifying Russian armed attack against a NATO ally could engage Article 5 and provide the context for collective self-defense under Article 51. It would not establish, without further analysis, that a blockade of Kaliningrad was necessary or proportionate to that attack. Those requirements attach to the particular defensive action rather than to the existence of the alliance obligation alone.
Article 4 operates at a different stage. It provides for consultation whenever a member considers that the territorial integrity, political independence, or security of a party is threatened (North Atlantic Treaty, 1949). Consultation over a perceived threat to Poland, Lithuania, or another ally does not establish that an armed attack has occurred. Political concern, alliance consultation, military preparedness, and a legal entitlement to use interstate force remain distinct.
6. The Nuclear Warning as a Threat of Force
Russia’s warning concerning possible nuclear use if NATO attempted to isolate Kaliningrad raises a separate question under the law governing threats of force (Reuters, 2026). The mention of nuclear weapons does not by itself determine the legality of the statement. The relevant inquiry concerns whether the force being threatened could lawfully be used in the circumstances contemplated.
The International Court of Justice addressed that relationship in its 1996 Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. The Court stated that threat and use stand together under Article 2(4): where the envisaged use of force would itself be unlawful, a declared readiness to employ that force would likewise constitute an unlawful threat (ICJ, 1996, para. 47).
The consequence is conditional rather than categorical. If Russia threatened nuclear force in circumstances where it had no lawful basis for using force, Article 2(4) would be engaged. If an armed attack instead gave rise to a right of self-defense under Article 51, the existence of that right would alter the jus ad bellum analysis but would not make nuclear use lawful automatically.
Any force used in self-defense remains subject to necessity and proportionality. The Court also concluded that nuclear weapons, like other means of warfare, must be assessed under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, including international humanitarian law (ICJ, 1996). A valid claim to self-defense does not remove those separate restrictions on the conduct of hostilities.
The Advisory Opinion left one narrow issue unresolved. The Court could not reach a definitive conclusion on the legality or illegality of nuclear use in an extreme circumstance of self-defense in which the survival of the state itself would be at stake (ICJ, 1996, para. 97). Its conclusion was confined to that exceptional formulation. The strategic importance of Kaliningrad, standing alone, does not place a nuclear response within the unresolved situation identified by the Court.
7. The Law of Blockade Once Armed Conflict Exists
The legality of resorting to a blockade and the legality of conducting one are separate questions. The first belongs to the jus ad bellum and concerns whether force may lawfully be used at all. Once an international armed conflict exists, naval operations are also governed by international humanitarian law and the law of armed conflict at sea. Compliance with the latter rules cannot supply a retrospective legal basis for an otherwise unlawful resort to force.
No single modern treaty comprehensively codifies naval blockade. The 1994 San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea was prepared by international lawyers and naval experts as a contemporary restatement of the law governing armed conflict at sea. It is not a treaty. Although much of the Manual was intended to reflect existing law, some provisions were acknowledged as involving progressive development (San Remo Manual, 1994).
The Manual requires a blockade to be declared and notified to belligerent and neutral states and specifies that the declaration should identify matters such as its commencement, duration, location, and extent. A blockade must also be effective as a matter of fact (San Remo Manual, 1994, paras. 93–95). These requirements distinguish an operative naval blockade from a political declaration that an adversary is to be isolated.
Neutral rights impose further limits. A blockade may not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral states and must be applied impartially to the vessels of all states (San Remo Manual, 1994, paras. 99–100). In a Baltic conflict involving Kaliningrad, the position of states not participating in the hostilities could consequently affect the lawful execution of the blockade.
Civilian consequences are equally important. The San Remo Manual prohibits a blockade whose sole purpose is starving civilians or denying them objects essential for survival. It also prohibits a blockade when the expected harm to civilians would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated and addresses the passage of essential supplies for inadequately provided civilian populations (San Remo Manual, 1994, paras. 102–104).
Additional Protocol I reinforces the protection of civilians for states bound by the treaty. Article 54 prohibits starvation of civilians as a method of warfare and protects objects indispensable to their survival, while Article 70 regulates humanitarian relief for inadequately supplied civilian populations (Additional Protocol I, 1977). The Protocol’s rules concerning attacks at sea apply to effects on civilians and civilian objects on land as specified in Article 49(3); they do not constitute a comprehensive treaty code of naval blockade.
Not every possible participant in a NATO operation is a party to Additional Protocol I, so treaty obligations under the Protocol cannot simply be attributed to all NATO members. Separate customary rules remain relevant. The ICRC’s customary-law study identifies prohibitions on starvation of civilians, attacks against objects indispensable to survival, and arbitrary obstruction of humanitarian relief as rules of customary international humanitarian law (ICRC, 2005).
Kaliningrad is an inhabited region as well as a military area. Even if a blockade had a valid basis under Article 51 or Chapter VII, its effects on civilians, essential supplies, humanitarian relief, and civilian objects would require separate legal scrutiny. A lawful basis for resorting to force would not settle the legality of the blockade’s implementation.
8. Applying the Rules to the Kaliningrad Scenarios
The clearest case is a military blockade initiated by NATO member states in peacetime, where no qualifying armed attack has occurred, and no Security Council authority exists. An operation using armed forces to prevent maritime access to Russian ports would engage Article 2(4) and closely resemble the blockade identified in Article 3(c) of the Definition of Aggression. Strategic concern about Kaliningrad would not itself supply an exception to the prohibition on force (United Nations, 1945; United Nations General Assembly, 1974).
The position changes if Russia first carries out an armed attack against a NATO ally and the attacked state requests collective assistance. Article 51 could then provide a legal basis for collective self-defense, while Article 5 would govern the alliance obligation among NATO members. That would establish a possible entitlement to use defensive force, not an automatic entitlement to blockade Kaliningrad.
The blockade itself would still have to satisfy necessity and proportionality. Its connection to the armed attack, its military purpose, its scale, its effects, and the availability of less extensive defensive measures would all bear on that assessment (Nicaragua, 1986; Oil Platforms, 2003).
If the jus ad bellum requirements were satisfied and an international armed conflict existed, the execution of the blockade would remain subject to the law of armed conflict at sea and applicable international humanitarian law. The San Remo rules concerning effectiveness, neutrality, civilian harm, and essential supplies would remain relevant, while treaty rules such as Additional Protocol I would bind states according to their treaty obligations and customary IHL would operate independently where applicable.
A Security Council-authorized blockade would rest on another legal foundation. Article 42 expressly includes blockade among the enforcement measures available under Chapter VII (United Nations, 1945). States implementing such a decision would have to remain within the terms of the Council’s mandate and comply with the international law governing the conduct of the operation.
Sanctions, railway restrictions, border controls, and naval blockade consequently cannot be treated as interchangeable forms of “isolation.” Their legal consequences depend on the means employed and the authority relied upon. In the Kaliningrad context, identifying the measure precisely is a prerequisite to determining which rules govern it.
Also read
Conclusion
A military blockade of Kaliningrad by NATO member states would not be lawful merely because the exclave is militarized, strategically important, or perceived as a regional security threat. Without Security Council authority or a valid basis in self-defense, an armed blockade would ordinarily violate Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and closely correspond to the conduct described in Article 3(c) of the UN Definition of Aggression (United Nations, 1945; United Nations General Assembly, 1974).
The legal position could change following a qualifying armed attack. Collective self-defense may permit military action where Article 51 is engaged, but it would not automatically validate a blockade of Kaliningrad. Necessity and proportionality would still govern the defensive measure, while its implementation would remain subject to the applicable rules of naval warfare and international humanitarian law.
Russia’s nuclear warning requires the same separation between entitlement and means. Under the ICJ’s 1996 Advisory Opinion, the legality of a threat depends on whether the contemplated use of force would itself be lawful. Neither NATO’s collective-defense arrangements nor Russia’s nuclear warning displaces the Charter rules governing resort to force or the humanitarian rules governing the conduct of hostilities.
References
Additional Protocol I (1977) Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), adopted at Geneva, 8 June 1977, entered into force 7 December 1978, 1125 UNTS 3. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=08000002800f3586 (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
European Commission (2022) ‘Transport of goods in transit through the Union between the Kaliningrad Oblast and Russia’ [online]. Available at: https://finance.ec.europa.eu/publications/transport-goods-transit-through-union-between-kaliningrad-oblast-and-russia_en (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
Henckaerts, J.-M. and Doswald-Beck, L. (2005) Customary International Humanitarian Law. Volume I: Rules. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/customary-international-humanitarian-law-i-icrc-eng.pdf (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
International Court of Justice (1986) Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, 27 June, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/node/103143 (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
International Court of Justice (1996) Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 8 July, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 226. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/node/103787 (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
International Court of Justice (2003) Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Judgment, 6 November, I.C.J. Reports 2003, p. 161. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/node/103215 (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
International Court of Justice (2005) Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, 19 December, I.C.J. Reports 2005, p. 168. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/node/103161 (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
Lithuanian Ministry of National Defence (2026) ‘Data on interceptions of aircraft completed near the Baltic States’ borders on June 1–7, 2026’ [online], 8 June. Available at: https://kam.lt/en/data-on-interceptions-of-aircraft-completed-near-the-baltic-states-borders-on-june-1-7-2026/ (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
NATO (2004) ‘Seven new members join NATO’ [online], 29 March. Available at: https://www.nato.int/en/news-and-events/articles/news/2004/03/29/seven-new-members-join-nato (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
NATO (2025) ‘Troop contributions’ [online], updated 3 April 2025. Available at: https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/operations-and-missions/troop-contributions (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
NATO (n.d.) ‘NATO member countries’ [online], updated 11 March 2024. Available at: https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/organization/nato-member-countries (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
North Atlantic Treaty (1949) signed at Washington, DC, 4 April 1949, entered into force 24 August 1949, 34 UNTS 243. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=080000028016226c (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
O’Meara, C. (2022) ‘Reconceptualising the right of self-defence against “imminent” armed attacks’, Journal on the Use of Force and International Law, 9(2), pp. 278–323. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/20531702.2022.2097618 (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
Potsdam Conference (1945) ‘Protocol of the Proceedings of the Berlin Conference’, 1 August, in Foreign Relations of the United States, Diplomatic Papers, The Conference of Berlin (The Potsdam Conference), 1945, Vol. II, No. 1383. Available at: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1945Berlinv02/d1383 (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
Presidential Library (2026) ‘Президентская библиотека к 80-летию Калининградской области’ [Presidential Library marks the 80th anniversary of Kaliningrad Oblast] [online], 7 April. Available at: https://www.prlib.ru/news/2097327 (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
Reuters (2026) ‘Russia sends nuclear warning to NATO as tensions rise in the Baltic’ [online], 30 September. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/russia-issues-nuclear-warning-nato-tensions-rise-baltic-2026-09-30/ (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (1994) adopted at Livorno, 12 June 1994; reprinted in International Review of the Red Cross (1995), 35(309), pp. 595–637. Available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/san-remo-manual-1994 (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
State Security Department of the Republic of Lithuania (VSD) and Defence Intelligence and Security Service under the Ministry of National Defence of the Republic of Lithuania (AOTD) (2026) National Threat Assessment 2026. Vilnius: VSD and AOTD. Available at: https://www.vsd.lt/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/2026-GR-ENG-El.pdf (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
Svicevic, M. (2024) ‘Use of force’, in González Hauck, S., Kunz, R. and Milas, M. (eds.) Public International Law: A Multi-Perspective Approach. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 401–420.
Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany (1990) signed at Moscow, 12 September 1990, entered into force 15 March 1991, 1696 UNTS 115. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?clang=_en&objid=08000002800b8042 (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
UK Attorney General (2017) ‘Attorney General’s speech at the International Institute for Strategic Studies’ [online], 11 January. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/attorney-generals-speech-at-the-international-institute-for-strategic-studies (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
United Nations (1945) Charter of the United Nations, signed at San Francisco, 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?chapter=1&clang=_en&mtdsg_no=I-1&src=IND (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
United Nations General Assembly (1974) Definition of Aggression, Resolution 3314 (XXIX), A/RES/3314(XXIX), 14 December 1974. Available at: https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/da/da.html (Accessed: 30 September 2026).
Wilmshurst, E. (2008) ‘Definition of Aggression: General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974 – Introductory Note’, United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law [online]. Available at: https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/da/da.html (Accessed: 30 September 2026).