The War in Ukraine and Russia’s International Responsibility: A Public International Law Perspective

Russia’s large-scale military operation against Ukraine, launched on February 24, 2022, has not only shaken the foundations of European security but also challenged the core principles of public international law. This article provides a comprehensive legal analysis of Russia’s conduct through the lens of state responsibility. It examines how the war is characterized under international law, the specific legal norms Russia is accused of violating, the implications under the doctrine of state responsibility, and the practical consequences of these breaches. Furthermore, it explores the positions of international judicial bodies and the reactions of the global community.

1. How Is the War in Ukraine Characterized Under International Law?

The classification of armed conflicts under international law is primarily governed by the United Nations Charter and customary international law. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits states from using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other state.

Russia’s direct military intervention on Ukrainian territory has been widely condemned by states and international organizations as an act of aggression and occupation. In contrast, Russia has attempted to justify its actions by claiming to defend the independence of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, suggesting a form of self-defense. However, most legal scholars agree that this justification does not meet the strict criteria for the lawful use of force under international law, particularly the requirements of necessity and proportionality following an armed attack.

2. Violations of the UN Charter and Other International Norms

Russia’s conduct appears to contravene not only the UN Charter but also a range of international legal instruments and norms:

• Article 2(4) of the UN Charter: Clear violation of the prohibition on the use of force.

• 1949 Geneva Conventions: Attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure breach international humanitarian law.

• 1994 Budapest Memorandum: A political commitment to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and borders.

• 1974 UN Definition of Aggression: Russia’s acts fall squarely within this definition.

• Minsk Agreements: Russia undermined peace processes it was itself a party to.

3. State Responsibility Under the ILC’s Articles

When a state breaches its international obligations, state responsibility is triggered. The International Law Commission (ILC)’s Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001), though not binding, are widely regarded as reflective of customary international law.

Key Elements:

• Breach of a norm: The prohibition on the use of force is a jus cogens (peremptory) norm.

• Attribution: The conduct must be attributable to the state.

• Consequences:

  • The wrongful act must cease.

  • The situation should be restored to its pre-breach condition.

  • Full reparation must be made (through restitution, compensation, or satisfaction).

  • Other states have an obligation of non-recognition and non-assistance.

In this framework, Russia’s actions generate clear and serious international responsibility.

4. Practical Consequences of This Responsibility

State responsibility is not a merely theoretical concept—it has real-world implications:

• Compensation: Ukraine seeks billions of dollars in compensation for damages caused by the war.

• Sanctions: The EU, US, and other states have imposed economic sanctions on Russia, which may qualify as lawful countermeasures under international law.

• Asset Seizures: Actions taken against Russian central bank reserves and oligarch assets raise complex legal debates over enforcement of responsibility.

• Accountability for War Crimes: The International Criminal Court (ICC) has launched investigations into war crimes and crimes against humanity.

5. The Role of International Judicial Bodies: ICJ and ICC

International Court of Justice (ICJ)

In March 2022, Ukraine filed a case against Russia before the ICJ under the Genocide Convention, seeking provisional measures. The Court ordered Russia to suspend its military operations. While the ruling is legally binding, Russia has ignored it. The ICJ also questioned the legal basis of Russia's genocide allegations against Ukraine.

International Criminal Court (ICC)

The ICC opened an investigation into potential war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide committed in Ukraine. In March 2023, the Court issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin, citing the unlawful deportation of children. Though the warrant is difficult to enforce, it is symbolically significant for the rule of law.

6. The International Community’s Response and Legal Basis

European Union (EU)

The EU has imposed its most comprehensive sanctions regime to date. These sanctions are legally justified as collective countermeasures.

United States (US)

The US has provided military and financial support to Ukraine and imposed sanctions on Russia. These actions are also framed within the doctrine of lawful countermeasures under international law.

United Nations (UN)

In March 2022, the UN General Assembly, with 141 votes in favor, condemned Russia’s aggression. However, the UN Security Council has remained paralyzed due to Russia’s veto power, exposing the political limits of international law enforcement.

Conclusion: The Legal Framework Is Clear, But Political Will Is Key

The war in Ukraine represents one of the clearest violations of fundamental rules of public international law in recent history. Russia’s actions breach the prohibition on the use of force and multiple international obligations. As such, it incurs state responsibility under well-established legal principles. Judicial bodies like the ICJ and ICC have taken steps, and the international community has responded with sanctions and legal condemnation.

Nevertheless, the enforcement of international legal responsibility remains deeply political. While the law provides a robust normative framework, the realization of justice ultimately depends on the collective will and coordinated action of the international community.