Is Russia's invasion of Ukraine justified?

NoSays it is contested

This is a contested question — I'll gather the legal positions and the arguments put forward by each side.

Russia's 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine is widely considered illegal under international law, though Russia has offered several legal and political justifications for it.

1. Russia's stated justifications

In his televised address on 24 February 2022, President Vladimir Putin announced a "special military operation" to defend the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) and Luhansk People's Republic (LPR).

He cited:

•Collective self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter - based on agreements with the DPR and LPR, which Russia had recognized as independent states three days earlier. He said Russia was acting in self-defense and its goal was the "demilitarization and denazification" of Ukraine.

•Protection of Russian speakers and preventing genocide - Putin claimed Ukraine had been committing genocide against Russian speakers in the Donbas region, where people "for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kyiv regime", and that Ukraine's government were neo-Nazis under Western control and that NATO was building up military infrastructure in Ukraine, threatening Russia.

•NATO threat - Putin spoke about the impossibility of reaching an agreement with NATO and accused the alliance of expanding to the east, calling it "unacceptable", and said Ukraine was becoming an "anti-Russia" state supplied by NATO with modern weapons.

Russia had invoked international law to justify the invasion, arguing it was acting collectively in self-defense on the invitation of the governments of the two republics.

2. How international law assesses those claims

The most important rule on use of force is in the U.N. Charter, which 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 Charter permits only two exceptions to this prohibition:

•use of force in individual or collective self-defense under Article 51 when it has actually been attacked, or

•when the UN Security Council authorizes military action to maintain international peace.

International lawyers note:

•Self-defense requires an armed attack. The Charter's only clear exception to prohibiting the use of force is self-defense, "if an armed attack occurs" against a country.

•No armed attack preceded the invasion. No armed attack by Ukraine against Russia preceded the invasion, and the Security Council never authorized it. Similarly, "Nothing that Ukraine has done to date could be construed as an 'armed attack' on Russia and justify any Russian claim to self-defense".

•Article 51 argument rejected. Putin's reference to Article 51 is regarded by a number of lawyers as incorrect, because Article 51 allowed one UN member state to give military aid to another member state, but the DPR and LPR were not UN member states and were only recognized as independent by Russia. The right to self-defense is in exceptional cases, mainly when an attack on a country has already begun or is about to begin, and a blurred NATO threat cannot justify military action.

•Genocide claim rejected. Putin's accusation that Ukraine was committing genocide in the Donbas have been widely rejected as baseless by other countries and international organizations. Ukraine brought a case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to challenge Russia's claim, and the ICJ said it had not seen any evidence of genocide committed by Ukraine. On March 16, 2022 the ICJ ordered provisional measures directing Russia to immediately suspend its military operations.

•Overall assessment. Under the contemporary framework, "Under no scenario is Russia's armed invasion of Ukraine legal under contemporary international law and norms".

3. International response

•The UN General Assembly passed Resolution ES-11/1 by a vote of 141 to 5, deploring Russia's aggression and reaffirming Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

•NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg condemned "Russia's reckless and unprovoked attack on Ukraine, which puts at risk countless civilian lives".

•U.S. President Joe Biden described it as "an unprovoked and unjustified attack".

•The UN Secretary-General said the invasion directly conflicts with the UN Charter.

4. Context of the NATO argument

Ukraine is not a member of NATO. Between the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the invasion 14 Eastern European countries were admitted to NATO. Russia has opposed Ukraine joining NATO, viewing it as a threat, while NATO says it is not at war with Russia and supports Ukraine in "its right to self-defense, as enshrined in the UN Charter". Some analysts had warned before 2022 that NATO expansion could be perceived by Russia as a security threat, but under international law a perceived future threat is not recognized as a legal basis for preventive war without an actual armed attack or Security Council authorization.

In summary, from the perspective of the UN Charter and the majority of international legal experts, the invasion lacks legal justification because neither self-defense nor UN authorization applied. Russia's justification rests on its own interpretations of self-defense, protection of populations in Donbas, and strategic security concerns regarding NATO.

Citations (3)

1wikipedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.83
Speech by Vladimir Putin regarding the start of the invasion of Ukraine
Backs: “Russia's 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine is widely considered illegal under international law, though Russia has offered several legal and political justifications for it. 1. Russia's stated justifications. In his televised address on 24 February 2022, President Vladimir Putin announced a "special military…”
attribution, reference entry, neutral. Claim: Putin's 24 February 2022 address announced a 'special military operation' and set out Russia's stated justifications for the invasion.
2tufts.eduAcademic
International law says Putin’s war against Ukraine is illegal. Does that matter? – Fletcher Russia and Eurasia Program
Backs: “Russia had invoked international law to justify the invasion, arguing it was acting collectively in self-defense on the invitation of the governments of the two republics. 2. How international law assesses those claims. The most important rule on use of force is in the U.N. Charter, which states, "All Members shall…”
evidence, article, points to no. Claim: International law, including the UN Charter's prohibition on the use of force, makes Russia's invasion illegal; no armed attack by Ukraine occurred.
3legalclarity.orgCommercial content
What International Law Is Russia Breaking in Ukraine?
Backs: “Charter, which 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 Charter permits only two exceptions to this prohibition:”
evidence, article, points to no. Claim: The UN Charter allows only two exceptions to the prohibition on force: self-defense against an armed attack and Security Council authorization.