Description
How far can international law be stretched to justify foreign policy choices? International relations scholarship has explored the strategic use of international legal claims in justifying foreign policy, noting that appeals to international law are central to foreign policy, particularly those surrounding the use of military force. While scholars have examined how these claims are made and what makes them effective justificatory tools, the limits of these claims - the conditions under which they fail - remain underexplored. This paper addresses this question with a qualitative analysis of the legal references in Russia's justifications for its invasion of Ukraine, Ukrainian counterarguments, and the responses made by other states. Discourse analysis principles show how Russia attempted to weave together references to various bodies of international law - particularly sovereignty, genocide and human rights, and self-defense - to justify the invasion. I then further show how these justifications were contested by opponents, who employed more socially acceptable legal claims and interpretations, ultimately defeating Russia's legal justifications and raising the social costs of the invasion. This analysis contributes to scholarship on the use of international law in foreign policy, the place of legal rhetoric in international politics, and the role of legal claims in making and interpreting international law.
