Is Russia's invasion of Ukraine justified?

The invasion raises contested legal and historical claims — I'll examine Russia's stated justifications alongside the international law response.

Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine is described by the Russian government as justified, and by a large majority of states and international legal experts as unjustified and illegal. The positions can be summarized as:

1. Russia's stated justifications

On 23-24 February 2022 President Vladimir Putin announced a "special military operation", claiming it was necessary to:

•"protect people who have been subjected to abuse and genocide" by the Ukrainian government and to "protect Russia and our people"

•respond to a request for assistance from the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics, which Russia had recognized as independent two days before

•achieve the "demilitarisation and denazification of Ukraine"

In legal terms, Russia has argued its use of force is lawful under Article 51 of the UN Charter, which preserves the right to individual and collective self-defense against an armed attack. Specifically:

•Individual self-defense: defense against a threat posed by NATO expansion and by Ukraine itself

•Collective self-defense: defense of the Donetsk and Luhansk entities at their request

•Other implicit claims have included humanitarian intervention / protection of nationals abroad, and allegations of genocide in eastern Ukraine

Putin stated Russia was "acting to defend ourselves" and that this was "in accordance with Article 51 (Chapter VII) of the UN Charter", and that letter was appended to a letter to the UN Security Council to fulfill the reporting requirement under Article 51.

2. Legal framework

The UN Charter sets out when members may legally resort to force (jus ad bellum).

•Article 2(4) prohibits the use of force: "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". The Charter requires members to "settle their international disputes by peaceful means". The only two exceptions are self-defense and authorization by the Security Council.

•Article 51 self-defense requires an armed attack: Article 51 preserves the right of individual and collective self-defense "if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations".

•Definition of aggression: UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (1974) defines aggression to include invasion or attack by armed forces of a state on the territory of another state, or any military occupation resulting from it.

3. Why the justifications are rejected by most international bodies and scholars

The invasion has been described as violating international law including the Charter of the United Nations, and as a crime of aggression under Article 8bis(1) of the Rome Statute, defined as an act of aggression which constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter.

Experts have generally rejected Russia's legal arguments:

a) No armed attack by Ukraine or NATO: Scholars noted Russia cannot rely on self-defense because Ukraine has not threatened or attacked any other nation. Analysis of the jus ad bellum found "there had been no armed attack — no use of force, 'grave' or otherwise — against Russia by NATO prior to the invasion".

b) No imminent threat: Even for states that accept anticipatory self-defense against an imminent attack, the claim was found factually baseless. There was "no evidence whatsoever ahead of the invasion ... that NATO was about to launch, imminently, an armed attack against Russia". Putin himself referred to a more temporally remote threat — that a military presence "will stay for decades to come ... creating an ever mounting ... threat". International law does not permit pre-emptive self-defense against a vague, non-imminent threat, and such "security needs [that are] essentially preventative cannot sustain a self-defence claim".

c) Collective self-defense invalid because Donetsk and Luhansk are not states: Experts opined Russia could not invoke collective self-defense because these regions "are not recognized as separate states under international law".

d) Genocide / humanitarian intervention: Scholars described Putin's allegations of genocide and comparison of Ukraine to a Nazi state as baseless. Experts have rejected the humanitarian argument; some question whether international law even allows force to remedy genocide or human rights violations, as the legality of humanitarian intervention is heavily disputed. In any event, the humanitarian justifications "are widely perceived as a pretext, and are unsubstantiated by any evidence" of genocide.

e) Comparisons to Western interventions: Russia has compared its actions to interventions in Kosovo, Iraq, Libya and Syria. These comparisons have been dismissed as irrelevant because "one illegal act does not make a different act legal".

f) Violation of specific agreements: The invasion is also cited as violating the 1975 Helsinki Final Act and the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, in which Russia agreed "to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine".

4. Response at the United Nations

•At the Security Council, Russia vetoed a resolution that would have called for it to cease its attack.

•At the General Assembly, an emergency session passed a resolution condemning the invasion with 141 in favour, 5 against and 35 abstentions. A later resolution calling on states not to recognize Russia's claimed annexation of four Ukrainian regions passed 143 in favour to five against, with 35 abstentions.

•The full-scale invasion is categorized as breaching Article 2(4), and under Resolution 3314 as including invasion, bombardment, blockade and attacks on armed forces. The General Assembly in Resolutions ES-11/1 and ES-11/4 recognized Russia's actions as aggression.

Summary

Under the UN Charter system as interpreted by the UN General Assembly, the International Court of Justice, and the overwhelming majority of international law scholars, there is no accepted legal justification for the invasion. It is treated as a prima facie breach of the prohibition on the use of force and an act of aggression.

Russia maintains its actions are justified as self-defense under Article 51 and as protection of populations in the Donbas, citing NATO expansion and alleged threats to Russian speakers. That position has not been accepted by the UN General Assembly or by international courts and has been rejected by most legal experts for the reasons above.

Citations (3)

1wikipedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.83
Legality of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
Backs: “Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine is described by the Russian government as justified, and by a large majority of states and international legal experts as unjustified and illegal. The positions can be summarized as:”
2tandfonline.comAcademic
Russia’s attack on Ukraine and the jus ad bellum
Backs: “Collective self-defense: defense of the Donetsk and Luhansk entities at their request. Other implicit claims have included humanitarian intervention / protection of nationals abroad, and allegations of genocide in eastern Ukraine”
3aggressionarchive.comLow provenance
UN Charter and Russia’s Violations of International Law
Backs: “The UN Charter sets out when members may legally resort to force (jus ad bellum). Article 2(4) prohibits the use of force: "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".”