Since Russia’s incursion into Ukraine in February 2022, doubts have arisen about the enduring relevance of international law in governing the use of armed force (jus ad bellum) and state conduct during armed conflicts (jus in bello). Critics point to Russia’s numerous violations, including indiscriminate killings, torture, sexual violence, and attacks on civilian targets, as evidence that international law, particularly jus in bello, has become ineffective. Some even argue that future authoritarian aggressors will disregard international law in favor of a Clausewitzian “Kriegsraison” approach to conflict. This poses significant challenges for legal practitioners, analysts, and policymakers in the military, intelligence, and national security sectors.
The nature of warfare is evolving, with the U.S. military integrating emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, synthetic biology, and advanced manufacturing. This raises questions about how adversaries might use these technologies and whether they will adhere to international law in future conflicts.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine undoubtedly violated jus ad bellum. Moreover, its violations of jus in bello during the conflict are well-documented. However, it is important to recognize that even in the face of non-compliance, international law remains relevant. Russia’s justifications for its actions and the international condemnation it received demonstrate the enduring power of international law and the importance of upholding the rules-based international order.
Jus ad bellum and jus in bello continue to serve important purposes. Jus in bello, in particular, establishes and maintains legitimacy for states, which is a crucial factor in judging the conduct of military operations. Adherence to jus in bello is a source of national and international strategic power. Russia’s violations during the conflict and the international community’s response underscore the continued significance of international law.
While Russia’s actions may lead some to believe that international law is becoming obsolete, the international response to Russia’s abuses has demonstrated its strength. The U.N. General Assembly’s condemnation of Russia, the imposition of sanctions, and the issuance of an arrest warrant for President Putin all highlight the consequences of violating international law.
The international community’s support for Ukraine, grounded in the legal recognition of Russia’s wrongdoing, is a testament to the enduring power of international law. Despite the conflict’s ongoing nature, the international response has proven the potency of international law in addressing the actions of rogue states like Russia.
Rather than rejecting international law outright, future authoritarian aggressors are likely to seek ways to reshape it to advance their interests. China and Russia, in particular, may use legal language to defend their actions while undermining the principles of the international order. Legal practitioners must play a critical role in understanding and countering these efforts to preserve the rules-based international order.
In conclusion, international law remains a crucial framework for governing state conduct in armed conflicts. While challenges exist, the international community’s response to Russia’s actions demonstrates the enduring power of international law. Legal practitioners must be vigilant in understanding and addressing efforts by authoritarian states to exploit and reshape international law for their own ends.