Is Russia's invasion of Ukraine justified?

Russia's invasion of Ukraine raises complex legal questions — I'll examine the stated justifications and how they are assessed under international law.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 has been justified differently depending on whether the justification is evaluated as Russia's stated political/security reasons or as a legal justification under international law.

1. Russia's Stated Justifications

In his televised address on the evening of 23 February 2022 announcing a "special military operation," President Vladimir Putin gave several reasons:

•Protection from abuse and genocide: That military intervention was necessary to "protect people who have been subjected to abuse and genocide" by the Ukrainian government and to "protect Russia and our people".

•Protection of Donbas: That Russia was acting to protect Russian-speaking populations in Donbas from "bullying and genocide", and that the Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic - which Russia had recognized as independent states two days before - had requested assistance.

•Demilitarisation and denazification: The stated aims included "the demilitarisation and denazification of Ukraine", with Russia claiming Ukrainian government officials were neo-Nazis and that Ukraine was developing hostile military capabilities.

•Security threat from NATO: That NATO expansion and Western support for Ukraine were security concerns, and that Ukraine's potential NATO membership would enable the United States to install military bases neighboring Russia, threatening Russian sovereignty. Moscow demanded a guarantee Ukraine would never join NATO.

•Self-defense under the UN Charter: Russia argued its use of force was lawful under Article 51 of the UN Charter, which preserves rights to self-defense and collective self-defense, to defend the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics.

Russia also has compared its actions to Western interventions in Kosovo, Iraq, Libya and Syria to argue its intervention should be viewed similarly.

2. Assessment Under International Law

Most international legal experts, international courts, and UN bodies have rejected Russia's legal justifications:

•Violation of the UN Charter: Since the beginning, the invasion has been described as violating international law including the Charter of the United Nations. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter provides that 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". Article 2(3) requires settlement of disputes by peaceful means.

The Charter allows only two exceptions: self-defense and authorization by the Security Council.

•Self-defense argument rejected: Experts such as John B. Bellinger III and Anthony Dworkin argued Russia cannot rely on self-defense because Ukraine has not threatened or attacked any other nation. They also argued that even if Ukraine had been planning an attack against Donetsk or Luhansk, Russia could not invoke collective self-defense because these regions are not recognized as separate states under international law.

•Genocide / humanitarian intervention argument rejected: Experts rejected the humanitarian justification to protect Russian-speakers in the Donbas, noting the legality of humanitarian intervention is heavily disputed.

In any event, humanitarian justifications are widely perceived as a pretext and are unsubstantiated by any evidence that Ukraine has committed acts against Russians in Donetsk and Luhansk that could amount to genocide. Scholars described Putin's allegations of genocide and comparison of Ukraine to a Nazi state as baseless. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) on 16 March 2022 ordered that "the Russian Federation should immediately suspend the military operations that it commenced on 24 February in the territory of Ukraine".

•Crime of aggression: Because it violates the UN Charter and is more than a minor border incursion, the intervention was qualified by legal experts as a crime of aggression under Article 8bis(1) of the Rome Statute, defined as "an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations".

•Violation of other agreements: Legal analyses also cite violations of the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, the 1994 Budapest Memorandum in which Russia agreed "to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine," and the Minsk agreements.

•Comparison to Western interventions rejected: Comparisons to Kosovo, Iraq, etc. have been dismissed as irrelevant because "one illegal act does not make a different act legal" and would "carry little weight in any court of law".

3. Response at the United Nations

•In the UN Security Council, Russia vetoed a resolution that would have called for it to immediately cease its attack on Ukraine.

•In the UN General Assembly, a resolution condemning the invasion was passed with 141 votes in favour, 5 against, and 35 abstentions. The resolution called upon Russia to abide by the UN Charter and withdraw. Similar resolutions have been adopted repeatedly since, including ES-11/1 through ES-11/10. A 2022 vote was described as overwhelmingly demanding Russia immediately withdraw, with 141 of 193 members voting in favor.

Summary

From Russia's perspective, the invasion was presented as justified as self-defense, protection of populations in Donbas, prevention of NATO expansion, and denazification/demilitarization.

From the perspective of the UN Charter, the ICJ, and the majority of international law scholars and UN member states, there is "no legal justification under Article 51" and the use of force represents an illegal aggression against the territorial integrity of Ukraine, violating Article 2(4).

Whether the invasion is considered justified therefore depends on the framework used: political/security justification as asserted by Russia, versus legal justification under international law as assessed by the UN and most international legal experts.

Citations (2)

1wikipedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.83
Legality of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
Backs: “Russia's Stated Justifications. In his televised address on the evening of 23 February 2022 announcing a "special military operation," President Vladimir Putin gave several reasons: Protection from abuse and genocide: That military intervention was necessary to "protect people who have been subjected to abuse and…”
2wikipedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.83
Legality of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
Backs: “Violation of the UN Charter: Since the beginning, the invasion has been described as violating international law including the Charter of the United Nations. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter provides that all members "shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial…”