-4

Mr. Orban, Hungary's political leader, seems to be trying to use Hungary's membership in NATO by threatening to vote to not approve Sweden’s and Finland’s accession to the alliance unless it gets money from the EU. (Hungarian original article, use DeepL.com to translate; Google Translate materially distorts the report)

Where, if anywhere, can NATO sue Hungary for its noncompliance with the 2-percent military-spending requirement? Is it the International Court of Justice that has jurisdiction?

What would the remedy be? The nullification of the treaty of accession or some other remedy?

How long would such a process expectedly take if the parties wouldn’t settle the matter outside of litigation?

What precedent (binding or compelling) exists that may govern the litigation?

Improve this question
7
  • 1
    I’m voting to close this question because it shows a lack of basic research while asking a technical Q. Many NATO countries are at <2%. Singling out Hungary is not legally feasible. nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2022/6/pdf/…
    – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica
    Commented Nov 21, 2022 at 20:29
  • @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica "Many NATO countries are at <2%. Singling out Hungary is not legally feasible." What are you even talking about!? Singling out Hungary is not "legally feasible"? What do you even thin that means? Your argument is not feasible. Do you understand that Hungary would not have standing in a court of law to even make that argument because there is no authority that requires NATO command to prosecute all cases that are in violation of any accords of the treaties of NATO? It can, as a matter of merely the treaties, sue or not sue in its own discretion. No research?
    – Silvassy Petrirov
    Commented Nov 21, 2022 at 20:39
  • 3
    This appears to be asking to single out a single member of the alliance even though there are multiple other countries that do not meet the 2% requirement.
    – Joe W
    Commented Nov 21, 2022 at 21:11
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat.
    – Joe W
    Commented Nov 21, 2022 at 21:46
  • 1
    @StuartF And that seems to be exactly what a certain country/leader wants to happen in order to allow them to do more things with less risk.
    – Joe W
    Commented Nov 22, 2022 at 14:35

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
10

There are various agreements, dating back to the mid '00s that countries should "aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows; and aim to move towards the 2% guideline". Note that this is not a treaty obligation, but an agreed shared aspiration.

Failing to meet this goal is not a breach of the North Atlantic Treaty, and there is no precedent for expelling a member, certainly not under these conditions.

This is not a matter for the ICJ, there is no treaty being broken, and no possibility of litigation.

The treaty does not contain any provisions for expelling a member, but I suppose with the unanimous consent of all the other members, a member of Nato could be expelled. It has never happened.

Improve this answer
6
  • Giving the benefit of positive presumption, I upvoted. Could you support this answer by some cites of law or the treaties? If all is correct, I agree that the unanimous consent would effectively mean its expulsion since if there is no court to hear matters of this nature, the expelled member could also not be able to go complaint anywhere, and frankly, even if it could, how could it have any decision enforced against NATO’s will if NATO does not consent? If there is a common budget as that of the EU, maybe they could disburse the contributions in proportion, and that’s the end of it.
    – Silvassy Petrirov
    Commented Nov 21, 2022 at 22:54
  • To which one can add that that unanimous consent would have to be given by a number of states in breach of the 2% recommendation themselves. It is not very difficult to see the flaw in this line of thinking...
    – Italian Philosophers 4 Monica
    Commented Nov 21, 2022 at 23:46
  • 1
    If there were a material breach of the treaty, the analysis here would be relevant.
    – Daniel Hatton
    Commented Nov 22, 2022 at 0:08
  • 5
    @SilvassyPetrirov Unanimous consent by definition requires consent from everybody. Unanimous consent of non-Hungary NATO members would by definition require the consent of Belgium because Belgium is a non-Hungary NATO member, and Belgium only spends 1.18% of GDP on defense. So yes, unanimous consent would require the support of countries that themselves spend less than 2% of GDP on defense.
    – cpast
    Commented Nov 22, 2022 at 2:03
  • 1
    The treaty is the North Atlantic Treaty, and it contains provisions for a country to withdraw, but none for a country to be expelled. This means that all the other countries will continue to have treaty obligations to Hungary. There is no obligation to pay 2%. That is an aspiration. There is a small common budget, for admin, it is irrelevant here. No, NATO command cannot sue for treaty nullification because there is nothing in the treaty to allow for nullification. Nato command (ie the administrators in Belgium) is not a signatory to the Treaty.
    – James K
    Commented Nov 22, 2022 at 6:38

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .