Talk:Legality of the Russian invasion of Ukraine

Wording of First Sentence/Non-Western Sources
This is a space to discuss the wording of the first sentence of the article. Originally, the sentence stated that "the apparent consensus" international law experts was that Russia violated international law. This was because I couldn't find any article specifically saying there was a consensus, but I also couldn't find any counterexamples among reputable sources in my research when I wrote the first draft of the article: every source I found agreed that Russia violated international law.

I think the current wording -- "Many international law experts" -- is a bit of an understatement based on what I have found, so I wonder if there is a better alternative. Relatedly, it was pointed out that the sources in the article skew heavily toward US and UK experts, and so it was suggested that the first sentence should read "Many Western international law experts." I have added new sources to rectify that to some degree, but more non-western sources would definitely improve the article. As of now, there is only one really non-Western source for the first sentence (The Hindu, from India).

Johnraymassoud (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Johnraymassoud


 * Just say what the sources do and say it's an illegal war in violation of international law. There are no credible sources that disagree. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The first sentence does not work with the content of the article which then goes through all kinds of legal arguments with sources for both sides, for instance the 13-2 ruling of the ICJ. Also, the US maintains to this day that the Iraq war, the Kosovo war etc. were legal under international law, so the section where this is discussed should include this for perspective. An overwhelming majority of international law commentators and institutions are of the opinion the actions are illegal under international law, while international law scholars and institutions in Russia, Belarus, China etc. state the actions are legal. 84.119.60.29 (talk) 11:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Act of aggression / Crime of aggression
We cannot say in wikivoice that the invasion is a "crime of aggression"; this statement needs to be attributed - e.g., "according to some international lawyers and politicians" - or at the most it could be phrased hypothetically - e.g. "...which might constitute a crime of aggression". Now the statement is followed by a citation overkill, which is always a sign of lack of verifiability and neutrality. So we need to examine each citation one by one, but I'm afraid I already know the outcome: whether the invasion was a crime or not under international law is not a matter of course; it's a highly controversial and delicate matter, as the ICC Statute requires a "manifest violation of the Charter". Besides, the ICC has no jurisdiction over Russia, so Putin will never be tried there (unless they change the rules); he might face prosecution before a national court or an ad hoc international tribunal, but that's purely speculative and falls within WP:CRYSTALBALL. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * So let's examine the source one by one:
 * Wuerth_2022 (Professor of International Law). Says that "the Russian invasion as a violation of international law" but doesn't say that it is a crime;
 * Bellinger_2022. Idem, nothing on the crime;
 * Hannum_2022. Idem
 * Neal_2022. Idem; note that he says "individual members of the Russian armed forces or their political leaders might face charges for crimes, including war crimes, in the International Criminal Court or in domestic courts", without mentioning the crime of aggression;
 * Weiner_2022. Idem, nothing on the crime;
 * Dworkin_2022. He deals with the crime, and says: "Aggression is also a crime incurring individual responsibility ... However, there is a catch: in this case, the amendments incorporating the crime of aggression set restrictions on the court’s reach that do not apply to other international crimes. One of these limitations is that the ICC can only prosecute cases of aggression when both the attacking state and the victim state are members of the court. Russia has not joined the ICC ... Accordingly, Putin and senior officials need not fear prosecution before the ICC for this crime. However, some countries allow prosecution of the crime of aggression in their national law under the principle of universal jurisdiction. While Putin and senior Russian officials might be immune from such prosecution as long as they remain in office, they could face prosecution if they visited certain countries after leaving power" (my emphasis);
 * Wilmhurst_2022. Nothing on the crime;
 * Ranjan, Prabhash & Anil, Achyuth. Firewalled;
 * Troconis . Nothing on the crime;
 * Gross. Idem: Israeli legal experts condemn Russia’s invasion saying it is illegal under international law, but nothing on the crime of aggression;
 * McIntyre, Juliette; Guilfoyle, Douglas; & Paige, Tamsin Phillipa. They deal with the crime of aggression and claim that "Putin has committed the crime of aggression"; however, "the ICC has no jurisdiction over Russian aggression without the Security Council referring Russia to the court as a non-party"; "So, in the short run, will anyone be hauled before a court? No. In the long run? Maybe".
 * Based on this review of the sources, I'm going to edit the article so as to ensure full verifiability (tomorrow or in the next few days) Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So, according to you, the sources define "the Russian invasion as a violation of international law" but they "do not say that it is a crime". But is not a violation of law a very definition of crime? My very best wishes (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A violation of international law is not necessarily also an international crime. "International crimes" imply individual responsibility of the perpetrators, such as heads of state and government. "Internationally wrongful acts", on the other hand, imply state responsibility. The point is well explained in our article International criminal law and also Crime of aggression. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all, one can easily find strong RS that use term "crime of aggression", for example this by American Society of International Law. Secondly, you are probably incorrect saying that violation of law and crime are different in this case. For example, that source say "Russia’s aggressive war against Ukraine is one of the clearest violations of article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter since its entry into force. In addition to legal implications for the  responsibility of Russia as a state, the events have generated renewed interest in the possibility of individual accountability for the crime of aggression." and so on. My very best wishes (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources you mention are interesting and relevant, and deserve to be added to the article. They fully confirm, however, the point I've made: we cannot say in wikivoice "The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine ... constitutes a crime of aggression in international criminal law", but we should rather say "The invasion has also been called a crime of aggression under international criminal law" (references follow). The reference to "McIntyre, Juliette; Guilfoyle, Douglas; & Paige, Tamsin Phillipa" ("The Conversation") can now be integrated with the reference to the American Society of International Law's piece you shared. Note that they are all US and Australian scholars, which doesn't mean that they're "wrong", but means that they are voices in an open debate; besides, they all are fully aware of the difficulties of a legal case for the crime of aggression against the Russian leadership. The piece on Just Security, however, is more cautious and cannot be cited alongside the articles by ASIL and The Conversation: "...have generated renewed interest in the possibility of individual accountability..." (and what follows) doesn't amount to taking a stance, and the article is basically a set of proposals "de iure condendo", for changing the existing law and improving it in order to make international criminal law more effective. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Source doesn't support material
In the section "Comparisons to Western interventions in other countries" the sources do not back the claim that the US invasion of Iraq is a false equivalence or "better" because it tried to introduce democracy, topple dictators, etc. In the New York Post article by Rich Lowry, he states that the US invasion of Iraq was different because of 9/11's impact on the American psyche, not because the US wanted to bring democracy. Also his main point is to argue that US intervention to arm Ukraine is justified because they're in a defensive war. In fact, he even seems to state that the US was just as wrong as Russia is today, for example in this quote:

If the United States launched a large-scale military intervention 20 years ago without adequately calculating the risks or understanding the political and cultural contours of the country it would occupy, it is the Russians, not the Ukrainians, the Europeans or us, who are now replicating that mistake.

The second article in the Spectator is even less in accordance with what is being cited. The main point of the article is that states always act in pursuit of their own agendas, regardless of international law or norms, including the United States. This leads the author to make the claim that the US invasion of Iraq was even worse than the invasion of Ukraine, at least in terms of impact. For example:

The frequently heard charge that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine violates ostensibly sacred international “norms” holds no water. No such norms exist — at least none that a great power will recognize as inhibiting its own freedom of action. For proof, we need look no further than the recent behavior of the United States which has routinely demonstrated a willingness to write its own norms while employing violence on a scale far exceeding anything that Russia has done or is likely to do.

And also:

Russian actions in Ukraine deserve universal condemnation. But as crimes go, Putin’s aggression pales in comparison with the human toll exacted by Saddam Hussein’s US-supported war of choice against Iran. As for the calamitous results of the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the impact of Russia’s incursion into Ukraine rates as trivial by comparison. The point is not to measure relative iniquity in a balance, but simply to note that while the ongoing events in Ukraine may be tragic, they are not all that unusual.

In short, at least with regard to the Iraq War, this seems to be original research because none of the cited sources refer to a "false equivalence" between the invasion of Iraq and the invasion of Ukraine. In fact, they seem to say the opposite. I would suggest the removal of Iraq, Libya and Syria sections on this ground. The part about the intervention in Serbia can stay because it's sourced and verified to the Associated Press article.  MediaKill13  ( talk )   12:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Title
Isn’t this about the illegality of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, or stated positively as the criminality of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine?

A more generic title might seem to be legal aspects of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, but I think that describes a much broader scope than just the one question of whether the war is legal. —Michael Z. 00:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

European Court of Human Rights
There are also some cases before the European Court of Human Rights. See Soirila, Ukri: Kansainvälisen oikeusjärjestelmän haasteet sotatilanteissa: Venäjän hyökkäyssota Ukrainaa vastaan kansainvälisissä tuomioistuimissa Lakimies 2022(7–8):1354–1362. Kaihsu (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Some sources
Here are a few sources on the topic if anyone wants to expand. Notably missing from the article is anything about the September 30, 2022, “annexation.”


 * Sarah Garde, Is the Russian Annexation of Ukraine Actually Illegal?,” St Andrews Law Review, November 5, 2022.
 * Eleanor Knott,Russia’s attempt to annex Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk has undermined its claim on Crimea,” London School of Economics and Political Science, October 15, 2022.
 * Jens Iverson, Stop Saying “Annexed Territories”: Alternatives to the Bully’s Term, Just Security, October 5, 2022.
 * Lauri Mälksoo, “Ukraine Symposium – Illegality of Russia’s Annexations In Ukraine,” West Point Lieber Institute, October 3, 2022.
 * Cathleen Powell, “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is illegal under international law: suggesting it’s not is dangerous,” The Conversation, March 15, 2022.
 * Oona A. Hathaway, “International Law Goes to War in Ukraine: The Legal Pushback to Russia’s Invasion,” Foreign Affairs, March 15, 2022. Alternate link.
 * Rowan Nicholson, “How Russia’s recognition of breakaway parts of Ukraine breached international law – and set the stage for invasion,” The Conversation, February 22, 2022.

In journalism, at least a number of sources including The New York Times, Washington Post, and NPR are not afraid to call illegal illegal. We should not be either. —Michael Z. 05:22, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Kinda confused in section 2.1.3
Just in case the section number changes, the section heading is this: 'Comparisons to Western interventions in other countries'

My difficulty is with this paragraph:

'The Associated Press has noted that NATO's intervention in Kosovo only occurred after significant evidence of the persecution of ethnic Albanians, whereas Russian forces have no such evidence of abuses by Ukraine. However, it also noted that both interventions began with false claims of the persecution of ethnic minorities in neighboring countries, and that ethnic Russians feared Ukrainian nationalists.'

If I understand that cited article correctly, AP (Associated Press) is saying that:

- NATO only intervened in Kosovo after significant evidence of persecution;

- Russia intervened in Ukraine without significant evidence of persecution;

- Serbia made false claims of persecution of minorities to justify their intervention;

- Russia made false claims of persecution of minorities to justify their intervention.

However, the way that paragraph above is put together, it leads me to the conclusion that it is saying (third line changes):

- NATO only intervened in Kosovo after significant evidence of persecution;

- Russia intervened in Ukraine without significant evidence of persecution;

- NATO made false claims of persecution of minorities to justify their intervention;

- Russia made false claims of persecution of minorities to justify their intervention.

Maybe it's just my reading of it, or my lack of knowledge of the history, but if the latter, other people may put the same interpretation on that paragraph that I have.

A suggestion, if I'm on the right track of it being open to misinterpretation, is to change this part:

'both interventions began with false claims of the persecution...'

to

'both interventions began with false claims (by Serbs and Russians respectively) of the persecution...'

Mathsgirl (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)