The Russian invasion of Ukraine has created a number of legal questions that are still being sorted out. What are the implications of this action for Russia? For Ukraine? For the international community? In this blog post, we will explore some of the possible consequences of the Russian invasion of Ukraine from a legal standpoint.

Table of Contents

What is international law?

International law is a set of rules and principles that govern the relationships between different nations. It is also known as “law of nations.” International law is made up of two main branches: public international law and private international law.

Public international law deals with the relationships between different sovereign states, while private international law deals with the relationships between individuals or businesses that are based in different countries.

Is this the First Russian invasion of Ukraine?

No, this is not the first time that Russia has invaded Ukraine. In 2014, Russia annexed Crimea, which is a peninsula in southern Ukraine. This action was widely condemned by the international community and led to sanctions being imposed on Russia by the United Nations Security Council.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 was also notable for its use of “little green men,” which were soldiers who did not openly identify themselves as Russian military personnel but were widely believed to be Russian soldiers.

In the current invasion of Ukraine, Russia has again made use of “little green men” in an attempt to create chaos and confusion in Ukraine.

Legal Analysis of Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine

Acts of Secession

Russia’s actions of recognition to the annexed Crimea and to the separatist Donetsk and Luhansk Republics are considered by Ukraine and the vast majority of the international community as illegal.

In general, secession is only legal if it is done with the consent of the central government, as was the case with South Sudan. Without this consent, secession is illegal under international law.

Thus, Russia’s actions in Crimea and with the Donetsk and Luhansk Republics are illegal under international law.

Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter

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, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

The first question that must be asked is whether or not Russia’s actions in Ukraine constitute a “use of force.” According to the International Court of Justice, the use of force includes “the sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, mercenaries, soldiers, policemen, or other agents” into another state. (ICJ Reports 1986, p. 14) It also includes “threatening the use of force.” (ICJ Reports 1996, p. 12)

Russia has clearly used force in Ukraine. It has sent armed bands into the country, and it has threatened the use of force against Ukraine and against other countries that have tried to help Ukraine. Russia’s actions are clearly a violation of Article Two(four) of the U.N. Charter.

An Invasion

The next question is whether or not Russia’s actions in Ukraine constitute an “invasion.” An invasion is defined as “the entering of the territory of another state with the intention of conquering it.” (Oxford English Dictionary) Russia’s actions in Ukraine clearly meet this definition. Russia has sent troops into Ukraine with the intention of conquering it.

Russia’s actions in Ukraine are a clear violation of international law. This invasion will have implications for Russia, for Ukraine, and for the international community as a whole.

Does Russia meet the exceptions to art 2(4) of the UN Charter?

There are two exceptions to art 2(4) of the UN Charter.

The first is if the use of force is in self-defense. However, Russia’s actions cannot be justified as self-defense because Ukraine has not attacked Russia or threatened to attack Russia.
The second exception is if the use of force is authorized by the Security Council.

However, the Security Council has not authorized Russia to use force in Ukraine. In fact, the Security Council has condemned Russia’s actions in Ukraine and called for a withdrawal of Russian troops.

The Justification of Self Defence Under Article 51 of the UN Charter

Article 51 of the UN Charter:

“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”

In order for Russia to justify its actions in Ukraine as self-defense, it must show that Ukraine has attacked Russia or threatened to attack Russia. The Presence of NATO troops in Ukraine does not meet this criteria.
NATO is a defensive alliance, and its troops are in Ukraine at the request of the Ukrainian government. They are not there to attack Russia.
Even if NATO troops were in Ukraine to attack Russia, Article 51 only allows for self-defense against an “armed attack.” The presence of troops, even if they are armed, does not constitute an “armed attack.”

Enforceability of International Law Violations

Although Russia’s actions are clearly a violation of international law, it is important to note that the enforcement of international law is notoriously difficult.

The most likely outcome is that Russia will face economic sanctions from the international community. However, it is unlikely that any military action will be taken against Russia as a result of its actions in Ukraine.

Comity: The Toothlessness of International Laws, Treaties and Conventions

One of the main reasons that international law is so difficult to enforce is because there is no world government to enforce it. International law relies on the cooperation of sovereign nations to comply with its rules.

This cooperation is usually based on something called “comity.” Comity is defined as “the principle or spirit of mutual deference, respect, or courtesy.” (Oxford English Dictionary)

In other words, sovereign nations usually cooperate with each other because it is in their best interest to do so. However, this cooperation is not always guaranteed.

For example, Russia has shown that it is willing to violate international law if it believes that doing so is in its best interest. This willingness to violate international law makes it difficult to enforce.

Implications of Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has a number of implications, both legal and political.

From a legal standpoint, Russia’s actions are clearly a violation of international law. This violation will have implications for Russia, for Ukraine, and for the international community as a whole.

From a political standpoint, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is likely to increase tensions between Russia and the West. This tension could have a number of consequences, both for the region and for the world as a whole.

International Law and the Russian Invasion of Ukraine: The Implications