Is Russia's invasion of Ukraine justified?

A contested question — I'll survey Russia's stated reasons alongside international law and UN evaluations to weigh whether the invasion is considered justified.

Russia's 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine is widely considered unjustified under international law, although Russia has offered several justifications for its actions.

Russia's Stated Justifications

Russia has framed the invasion not as a war of aggression but as necessary for its security and for the protection of populations in Ukraine:

•Protection of Russian speakers, prevention of NATO expansion and "denazification" rather than imperial doctrine

•Historical claims to Ukrainian territory, arguing Ukrainian national identity was artificially promoted and that Western and NATO expansion is a security threat Russia had to respond to

•More specifically, Russia claimed it needed to protect its national interests and the rights of Russian-speaking populations in Ukraine, which it argued were under threat, and to prevent Ukraine's NATO membership

President Vladimir Putin also reiterated that NATO expansion is among the "root causes" of the war.

International Law Assessment

Under the United Nations Charter, the consensus among international lawyers, the UN, and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is that these justifications do not provide a legal basis:

1.Prohibition on the use of force: The starting point is Russia's blatant violation of the prohibition on the use of force in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which reflects customary international law. The UN Charter notes: 'All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state'.

2.Only two exceptions: The Charter allows the use of force only in the case of self-defense or with the consent of the Security Council. Article 51 states: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense, if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the Organization".

When Russian Armed Forces crossed the Ukrainian border on February 24, 2022, it was an act of armed aggression, not lawful defense. Suggesting there was, or is, any legal basis for Russia's actions would be nonsensical.

3.No evidence of genocide / "peacekeeping": Putin justified the invasion by arguing he is 'protecting' Russian-speaking people in the Donbas from genocide. Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention defines genocide as acts committed with intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, but critics have responded that there is no evidence to suggest such a genocide existed and that the claim is being misused as a political tool.

Similarly, Putin ordered forces into eastern Ukraine to 'perform peacekeeping functions' after recognizing breakaway regions. UN Secretary-General António Guterres said he is 'concerned about the perversion of the concept of peacekeeping ... When troops of one country enter the territory of another country without its consent, they are not impartial peacekeepers'.

4.Prohibition on acquiring territory by force: A natural extension of the prohibition on force is that it is unlawful to acquire territory by force — a principle affirmed by the UN Security Council.

5.Counter-arguments on NATO: The claim that NATO "betrayed" Russia with eastward expansion and thereby provoked the invasion has been described as a historical fiction. Analyses note that NATO expansion was a scramble by Russia's neighbors for protection, not a Western plot to invade Russia.

Response of International Institutions

•United Nations General Assembly: The General Assembly condemned Russia's attempted illegal annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia and reaffirmed that acquisition of territory through threat or use of force cannot be recognised as legal. On 12 October 2022 it overwhelmingly voted to condemn the annexation, with 143 in favor and five against.

•International Court of Justice: Ukraine brought a case to the ICJ on 26 February 2022 contesting Russia's genocide justification. On 16 March 2022, the Court directed Russia to "immediately suspend the military operations" in Ukraine in a 13-2 vote. The Court ruled that Russia must "immediately suspend the military operations" in Ukraine, with Vice-President Kirill Gevorgian of Russia and Judge Xue Hanqin of China dissenting, and the vote was 13 to two.

Summary

From Russia's perspective, the invasion is presented as justified on grounds of self-defense, protection of co-ethnics, historical unity, and preventing NATO encirclement.

From the perspective of international law and the overwhelming majority of states and international courts, the invasion is not justified. It is classified as a violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, an act of aggression with no valid self-defence claim, no Security Council authorization, and no credible evidence of genocide to trigger responsibility to protect.

Citations (2)

1aph.gov.auGovernment
International law issues raised by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine
Backs: “Prohibition on the use of force: The starting point is Russia's blatant violation of the prohibition on the use of force in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which reflects customary international law. The UN Charter notes: 'All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force…”
2justsecurity.orgNews and mediaquality 0.77
Fueling Russia’s War: The Russian Diesel Deal and International Law
Backs: “Article 51 states: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense, if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the Organization". When Russian Armed Forces crossed the Ukrainian border on February 24, 2022, it was an act of armed aggression, not lawful…”