Is Russia's invasion of Ukraine justified?

Russia's invasion of Ukraine involves contested claims — I'll examine the stated justifications and how international law assesses them.

Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine is widely described as a violation of international law, although Russia has offered legal and political justifications for its actions.

Russia's Stated Justifications

On 23-24 February 2022 President Vladimir Putin announced a "special military operation" in Ukraine. He claimed intervention was necessary to:

Additional justifications cited by Russian officials since then include:

Scholars described Putin's allegations of genocide and comparison of Ukraine to a Nazi state as baseless, and independent observers have said claims of genocide against Russian-speaking citizens are baseless and fabricated with no evidence.

Assessment Under International Law

The UN Charter prohibits the use of force between 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"

Russia's invasion has been described as violating international law including the Charter of the United Nations and as "a brutal murder of the United Nations (UN) Charter and several other tenets of international law".

Specific legal points made by experts and international bodies:

1. Prohibition on use of force: It "scarcely needs saying Russia is violating international law – violating the prohibition in the United Nations (UN) Charter on the use of force, violating the obligation to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other states". UN Secretary-General António Guterres said Russia's invasion directly conflicts with the UN Charter.

2. No valid self-defence claim: Self-defense is the only justification for use of force against another country according to international law. The Charter's only clear exception to prohibiting the use of force is self-defense, "if an armed attack occurs". Under no scenario is Russia's armed invasion of Ukraine legal under contemporary international law and norms.

Experts have noted that "Nothing that Ukraine has done to date could be construed as an 'armed attack' on Russia and justify any Russian claim to self-defense". Chatham House concluded: "There have been no threats of force against Russia from Ukraine nor from NATO member states. There is nothing to support a legal justification for Russia's military attack against Ukraine".

3. Collective self-defence on behalf of Donetsk and Luhansk rejected: Experts argued Russia cannot rely on collective self-defence because Ukraine has not threatened or attacked any other nation and because these regions are not recognized as separate states under international law. International law does not give inhabitants of a part of a state the right to secede, except in limited colonial contexts, and Russia's recognition was called a violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity and .

4. Humanitarian intervention / genocide justification rejected: Experts have rejected Russia's argument that its invasion is justified on humanitarian grounds to protect Russian-speakers, noting the legality of humanitarian intervention is heavily disputed and would require UN Security Council authorization. Even if the claims were true, it "would not justify the countrywide attacks he has unleashed".

5. Comparisons to Western interventions do not provide legal justification: Russia's comparisons to Kosovo, Iraq and Libya 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".

The invasion has also been qualified by legal experts as a crime of aggression, defined as an act of aggression which constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter, and Amnesty International called it "a clear violation of the United Nations Charter and an act of aggression that is a crime under international law".

Response at the United Nations

Russia vetoed a UN Security Council resolution that would have called for an immediate cessation of its attack.

The UN General Assembly then voted on a nonbinding resolution condemning the invasion:

> The United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly voted for a nonbinding resolution that condemned Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and called for its immediate withdrawal. After a rare emergency session, 141 countries voted for the resolution, 35 abstained, and five voted against it.

The resolution stated the attack is "a violation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine and inconsistent with the principles of the Charter".

In summary, under the framework of the UN Charter and contemporary international law as interpreted by the UN Secretariat, the General Assembly, the International Court of Justice, and most international law scholars, the invasion is considered illegal and not legally justified, while Russia maintains its stated political and security justifications.