Is Russia's invasion of Ukraine justified?

This question raises contested legal and political claims — I'll gather the current international law perspectives to answer it.

Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine beginning February 24, 2022 is broadly considered unjustified under international law, though Russia has offered its own justifications.

What Russia has claimed

President Vladimir Putin announced a "special military operation" in Ukraine, 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

•pursue "the demilitarisation and denazification of Ukraine"

In public speeches and state media, Putin framed the operation as protection for residents of the separatist Donetsk and Luhansk regions, a mission to "demilitarise and denazify" Ukraine, and a response to alleged threats posed by NATO expansion.

Scholars described Putin's allegations of genocide and comparison of Ukraine to a Nazi state as baseless.

What international law says

The framework for when force is permitted is the United Nations Charter:

•Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits the use of force except in narrow circumstances, principally selfdefence, Security Council authorisation, or intervention validly requested by a State

•The Charter states, "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 only two exceptions enshrined in the Charter are self-defense and an authorization by the Security Council

•Self-defense is the only justification for use of force against another country, according to international law

Legal analyses of Russia's specific claims have concluded:

•Under no scenario is Russia's armed invasion of Ukraine legal under contemporary international law and norms

•There is simply no plausible legal justification for the invasion, and Putin's attempt at creating one through recognizing the 'people's republics' of Donetsk and Luhansk and then claiming collective self-defence and the need to protect them from Ukrainian 'genocide' is obviously baseless

•Nothing that Ukraine has done to date could be construed as an "armed attack" on Russia and justify any Russian claim to self-defense

•Even if Putin's false claim that Ukraine is targeting Russian-speakers in eastern Ukraine were true, it would not justify the countrywide attacks he has unleashed

•Experts have rejected the argument that humanitarian intervention to remedy genocide allows the use of force, noting the legality of humanitarian intervention is heavily disputed and Russia's humanitarian justifications are unsubstantiated by any evidence

Russia has also tried to justify its invasion by comparing its actions to interventions by the United States and allies in Kosovo, Iraq, Libya and Syria. These comparisons have been dismissed as irrelevant because one illegal act does not make a different act legal.

Since the beginning, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has been described as violating international law (including the Charter of the United Nations) and as a crime of aggression, defined as "an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations".

The invasion is also said to violate other agreements Russia is party to, including the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, in which the USSR promised not to violate the "territorial integrity" of other signees and the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, in which Russia agreed "to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine".

Response at the United Nations

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

•The resolution on "Aggression against Ukraine" was adopted by 141 in favour to 5 against, with 35 abstentions

In summary, from the perspective of the Russian government, the invasion was presented as a defensive and humanitarian necessity. From the perspective of the UN Charter, the UN General Assembly, the UN Secretary-General, and the overwhelming majority of international law scholars, none of the recognized legal exceptions for the use of force applied, and the invasion constitutes a violation of the prohibition on the use of force and an act of aggression.

Citations (2)

1wikipedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.83
Legality of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
Backs: “What Russia has claimed. President Vladimir Putin announced a "special military operation" in Ukraine, 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"”
2tufts.eduAcademic
International law says Putin’s war against Ukraine is illegal. Does that matter? – Fletcher Russia and Eurasia Program
Backs: “Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits the use of force except in narrow circumstances, principally selfdefence, Security Council authorisation, or intervention validly requested by a State. The Charter states, "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force…”