Is Russia's invasion of Ukraine justified?

This is a contested geopolitical question — I'll survey legal and official positions on the invasion's justification.

Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, launched on 24 February 2022, is presented differently by Russia and by most of the international community.

1. Russia's stated justifications

On 23 February 2022, President Vladimir Putin announced a "special military operation" in Ukraine. He claimed that Russian 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". The stated aims included "the demilitarisation and denazification of Ukraine".

In public speeches and state media, this was also framed 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

Legally, Russia argued that its use of force was lawful under Article 51 of the UN Charter, which preserves the rights of states to defend themselves against "an armed attack" and to engage in "collective self-defense". Specifically, Russia claimed it could use force to defend the Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic, which it had recognized as independent states two days before the invasion.

2. Position under international law

The 1945 UN Charter sets out the conditions under which UN member states may legally use armed force.

•Article 2(4) 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".

•The only two exceptions enshrined in the UN Charter are self-defense and an authorization by the Security Council.

More specifically:
> Under no scenario is Russia's armed invasion of Ukraine legal under contemporary international law and norms.

And:
> Under no scenario is Russia's armed invasion of Ukraine legal under contemporary international law and norms. Self-defense is the only justification for use of force against another country, according to international law. This condition is found in the U.N. Charter and is binding for all 193 U.N. member countries.

Other formulations note the same principle: the use of force for self-defense is the only justification found in the UN Charter and is binding for all 193 members, and that Chapter VII authorizes collective action only through the Security Council.

U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said on Feb. 24, 2022: "The use of force by one country against another is the repudiation of the principles that every country committed to uphold... It is wrong. It is against the (United Nations) Charter".

3. Why legal experts reject Russia's legal arguments

Most legal scholars conclude:
> 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.

•Self-defense / collective self-defense: Experts such as John B. Bellinger III and others argued Russia cannot rely on self-defense because Ukraine has not threatened or attacked any other nation, and 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: Experts have likewise rejected the argument that the invasion is justified to protect Russian-speakers in the Donbas. The humanitarian justifications are widely perceived as a pretext and are unsubstantiated by evidence of genocide.

•Comparisons to Western interventions: Russia compared its actions to interventions by the US 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.

The invasion has also been described as violating international law including the Charter of the United Nations, and as a crime of aggression under international criminal law. The UN General Assembly reaffirmed Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders in response to Russia's actions in Crimea in 2014 and four additional regions in 2022, and passed a resolution condemning the invasion with an overwhelming 141-5 vote.

In short, Russia offers political and security justifications for its action, while the predominant view among international courts, the UN, and scholars of international law is that none of those claims meets the narrow legal exceptions for the use of force under the UN Charter, and therefore the invasion is considered illegal.

Citations (2)

1wikipedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.83
Legality of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine - Wikipedia
Backs: “Russia's stated justifications. On 23 February 2022, President Vladimir Putin announced a "special military operation" in Ukraine. He claimed that Russian 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…”
2tufts.eduAcademic
International law says Putin’s war against Ukraine is illegal. Does that matter? – Fletcher Russia and Eurasia Program
Backs: “Under no scenario is Russia's armed invasion of Ukraine legal under contemporary international law and norms. Self-defense is the only justification for use of force against another country, according to international law.”