Is Russia's invasion of Ukraine justified?

Is the invasion legally justified? I'll gather the competing claims and international legal assessments to give you a balanced answer.

Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine beginning February 24, 2022 has been justified by Russia and condemned as unjustified and illegal by Ukraine and a majority of the international community. Whether it is considered "justified" depends on the legal and political framework applied:

1. Russia's Stated Justifications

In public speeches and state media, President Vladimir Putin framed the operation as:

•protection for residents of the separatist Donetsk and Luhansk regions

•a mission to "demilitarise and denazify" Ukraine

•a response to alleged threats posed by NATO expansion

In a notification to the U.N. Secretary-General on the morning of the invasion, Russia appended a speech by Putin describing a host of grievances and justifications, which he couched using international law and the U.N. Charter's terminology. Russia's legal theories centered on three arguments:

a) Individual self-defense: Russia claimed to be defending itself from a generalized threat posed predominantly by the United States and other NATO members but emanating from Ukraine. Article 51 of the U.N. Charter preserves states' "inherent right" of self-defense when an "armed attack occurs".

b) Collective self-defense: Russia claimed to be acting in collective self-defense of separatist areas in Luhansk and Donetsk, which the Russian government recognized as independent states three days before its invasion.

c) Prevention of genocide: Russia argued its invasion is designed to prevent "genocide perpetrated by the Kiev regime" against Russians and Russian-speakers in Ukraine.

2. International Law Assessment and International Response

The starting point for analysis of when countries may use force is the U.N. Charter. Article 2(4) prohibits member-states from using or threatening to use force against one another, stated as: "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".

Exceptions are limited. Article 51 preserves the right to act in individual or collective self-defense when an armed attack occurs, and Chapter VII permits the Security Council to authorize military action. Self-defense is described as the only justification for use of force against another country found in the U.N. Charter and binding for all 193 U.N. member countries.

Most international legal analyses have concluded Russia's arguments do not meet those exceptions:

•Russia's invasion is described as a clear act of aggression and a manifest violation of Article 2.4 of the UN Charter.

•Analysis states: "Under no scenario is Russia's armed invasion of Ukraine legal under contemporary international law and norms".

•On self-defense: Observers have generally concluded that the absence of military action in Ukraine threatening the Russian state means Russia's self-defense argument is not viable under any standard. Nothing Ukraine had done could be construed as an "armed attack" on Russia to justify self-defense.

•On collective self-defense: Legal analysts assert the Luhansk and Donetsk areas do not satisfy international law's traditional criteria for statehood, because their purported independence was established through the use of force and they depend upon Russia for support. Even if they could be considered states, principles of necessity and proportionality would require limiting intervention to those regions — not a full-scale invasion aimed at demilitarization of all of Ukraine.

•On genocide: Ukraine "emphatically denies" the genocide allegation, and neither the United States nor international human rights monitors have reported evidence of such genocide in their assessments. Most observers view the claim as a fabricated pretext.

At the United Nations:

•The General Assembly adopted a resolution on "Aggression against Ukraine" by 141 in favour to 5 against, with 35 abstentions, issuing a condemnation of illegal and unprovoked attacks on a sovereign state.

•Member States overwhelmingly adopted a resolution demanding the Russian Federation immediately end its invasion of Ukraine and unconditionally withdraw all its military forces.

Russia vetoed a different resolution at the U.N. Security Council that would have contained a binding decision that Russia must immediately cease using force, which is possible because Russia holds veto power as a permanent member.

Summary

From Russia's perspective, the invasion is presented as a justified defensive and protective action. From the perspective of the U.N. Charter, the International Court of Justice, and the large majority of states and international law scholars, the invasion violates the prohibition on the use of force and does not qualify as lawful self-defense, collective self-defense, or authorized humanitarian intervention, and therefore is not legally justified.

Citations (2)

1congress.govGovernment
The Law of War and the Russian Invasion of Ukraine
Backs: “protection for residents of the separatist Donetsk and Luhansk regions. a mission to "demilitarise and denazify" Ukraine. a response to alleged threats posed by NATO expansion. In a notification to the U.N. Secretary-General on the morning of the invasion, Russia appended a speech by Putin describing a host of…”
2tufts.eduAcademic
International law says Putin’s war against Ukraine is illegal. Does that matter? – Fletcher Russia and Eurasia Program
Backs: “The starting point for analysis of when countries may use force is the U.N. Charter. Article 2(4) prohibits member-states from using or threatening to use force against one another, stated as: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity…”