Is Russia's invasion of Ukraine justified?

This contested question draws on competing legal and historical claims — I'll examine Russia's stated justifications alongside international law and UN findings.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine, launched on 24 February 2022 and described by Russia as a "special military operation," is contested. Russia has offered several justifications, but the prevailing view of international law bodies and most states is that the invasion violates international law.

1. What Russia Has Claimed

Russia's public statements have not been directly framed as formal legal arguments but have used language of international law:

More specifically, Russian state media listed the purported justifications as: (1) following a request from the authorities of the Donetsk and Lugansk republics for assistance in repelling Kiev's military aggression, (2) to protect the people of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions who have for eight years been exposed to humiliation and genocide, and (3) demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine.

2. How International Law Assesses Those Claims

The basic rule is in the UN Charter.

Russia and Ukraine are both sovereign states and members of the United Nations and Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force by member states, stating: "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".

There are only a couple of exceptions to the prohibition on the use of force. Article 51 outlines that self-defence is an exception if an armed attack occurs.

Analyses by international lawyers have concluded:

Evaluation of specific Russian arguments:

a) Self-defense / NATO threat: Russia's legal theories centered on three arguments, first that it was defending itself from a generalized threat posed predominantly by the United States and other NATO members but emanating from Ukraine, citing Article 51's "inherent right" of self-defense when an "armed attack occurs". International law scholars note that Article 51 requires an actual armed attack, and no such attack by Ukraine on Russia had occurred. Anticipatory self-defence for an imminent attack is disputed even when such a threat exists.

b) Genocide / Responsibility to Protect (R2P): Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention defines genocide as acts committed with intent to destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Critics have responded that there is "no evidence to suggest that there is a genocide of Russian-speaking people in the Donbas region and that the genocide claim is being misused by Putin as a political tool".

Putin's language is similar to the responsibility to protect (R2P) principle adopted by the UN World Summit in 2005. R2P is not a legally binding framework and for it to justify military force would need UN Security Council approval of collective military force, which "There was no effort by Russia to seek".

At the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Ukraine contended Russia premised its invasion on fabricated claims of Ukrainian genocide against Russians or Russian-speakers. The ICJ, on 16 March 2022, after a fast-track procedure, ordered provisional measures that Russia must "immediately suspend the military operations" in Ukraine, noting lack of evidence for Russia's genocide allegations.

c) Peacekeeping by invitation: Countries cannot unilaterally establish peacekeeping forces in other countries without that country's consent under Article 2(4). 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. They are not peacekeepers at all".

d) Self-determination of Donetsk and Luhansk: While the UN Charter includes the principle of self-determination, self-determination is limited by the principle of territorial integrity and "only in extreme instances of oppression can secession and the formation of a new state be justified. Russia's recognition of these states did not change their status as Ukrainian territory". It is also unlawful to acquire territory by force.

3. International Response

The invasion has been condemned as a violation of international law by world leaders, the United Nations and NATO.

The UN General Assembly has adopted multiple resolutions:

Summary

Whether the invasion is considered "justified" therefore depends on whether the evaluation is based on Russia's stated political and historical security concerns, or on the current framework of international law as interpreted by UN bodies and most international lawyers, who consider it illegal.

– Parliament of Australia](https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/Research/FlagPost/2022/March/Russia_Ukraine_and_International_Law)