U.S. President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed in principle to meet for a Ukraine summit on Feb. 24 in response to French President Emmanuel Macron's request; however, Putin launched a "special military operation" against Ukraine on this date. Russia deployed its military along the Ukrainian border for days despite all negotiations and NATO warnings. Today, Russia's war on Ukraine is entering its fifth week and continues to alarm the world. In hindsight, it appears as though Putin planned to attack Ukraine all along, and all negotiation efforts might have been pointless from the start. If you are going to wage war, you must plan the justifications carefully in advance.

With this in mind, the most perplexing question is: Which justification did Putin use while preparing for the war? To look for justifications, we need to mention "violations."

The violations

Russia clearly violated the non-use of force, nonintervention and international humanitarian law principles. Three of them constitute the raison d'etre (reason for existence) of international law, which is to maintain international order, peace and security. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) reconfirmed they are the most fundamental principles in its February 2022 judgment.

The cornerstone of it is the U.N. Charter Article 2(4), which prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of a state. Apart from the use of force, even the threat of force is prohibited. The world has seen once again in Russia's war that texts in charters do not alter reality.

Secondly, the right of every sovereign state to conduct its affairs without outside interference is regulated by Article 2(7) of the U.N. Charter. Putin recognized the independence of two self-proclaimed regions just three days before the start of a military conflict. In a way, Putin's move foreshadowed the war. The self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic in eastern Ukraine have provided him with a base from which to launch an invasion.

Regardless of whether those self-proclaimed republics fulfill the essential conditions for statehood, recognition during ongoing armed conflicts violates the principles of nonintervention. Additionally, Donetsk and Luhansk are completely dependent on Russia, implying that they lack sovereignty. Russia abused its recognition power before the war.

Furthermore, even if Russia's justification for using force is legal, its war violates the laws of armed conflict, also known as international humanitarian law. In accordance with the Geneva Conventions, which regulate the laws governing armed conflicts, all parties to armed conflicts are required to seek to minimize suffering during hostilities. Russia's attacks violated three principles: the principle of distinction between civilians and combatants, the principle of proportionality and the principle of precaution, which seeks to strike a balance between military necessity and humanity.

Finally, but certainly not least, Russia has abused the protection of the nationals doctrine. States may, as a last resort, conduct minimally invasive "special operations" to rescue their citizens from immediate danger abroad. The idea is widely accepted under certain situations, as impending, necessary and special. Operation Entebbe is a prototypical example of the Israel Defense Forces' efforts to secure the release 103 Israelis held hostage at Uganda's Entebbe Airport by Palestinian and German hijackers. There are no indications in Ukraine that the genocide of Russians living in the Donbass region is persisting or impending.

The justifications

Putin chose the so-called right to (collective) self-defense of the Donetsk and Luhansk as an argument.

Exceptions to the prohibition on the use of force include actions taken in self-defense pursuant to U.N. Charter Article 51, or under the auspices of a U.N. Security Council permission to use force pursuant to U.N. Charter Article 42. Essentially, when an armed attack is launched against a U.N. member, the right to individual or collective self-defense is invoked. The notions of immensity, necessity and proportionality are critical in self-defense. Active attacks from Ukraine on Russia require an immense response; the response must be the last choice after all diplomatic negotiations have been exhausted, and the defense must be proportionate to the attacks. There is no evidence that Ukraine has launched an attack on Russia, and hence Russia's war is not an act of individual self-defense.

Self-defense, on the other hand, is a magical hat. All justifications must be connected to that. The U.N. Charter grants states the right to defend other states, i.e. collective self-defense. Putin asserts that Ukraine is committing "genocide" against the Russian-speaking population in Eastern Ukraine's Donbass, where the Ukrainian army has been fighting Russia-backed separatists since 2014. Russia claims its right to collective self-defense alongside them. To meet the prerequisites of the right, the fundamental concepts are the same as for individual self-defense; there must be an attack and an immense, necessary, proportionate defense is required.

There should be a state that requires help in practicing its right to collective self-defense. As a result, Russia recognized the two separatist regions in Donbass on Feb. 22. It paved the path for the official presence of Russian troops in rebel-held territories. Biden had already stated that the recognition was "the start of a Russian invasion of Ukraine," which became reality.

As a result, in order to explain its violation of the principle of nonintervention, Russia recognized Russia-backed separatist groups as nations under the auspices of the Donbass status referendum held in 2014 following the annexation of Crimea. According to Roman Lyagin, head of the Donetsk election commission, 89% of voters favored self-rule. Ukraine described the vote as a "crime charade" orchestrated by Russia. Numerous countries have declared the referendum to be illegal and unconstitutional. Russia is the first member state of the U.N. to recognize it.

Apart from collective self-defense, Putin argues that Russians are living there under genocide and we have to protect them. The Russian people and genocide correspond to the doctrine of protection of nationals and intervening with humanitarian reasons. The two doctrines were chosen by Putin as a backup for collective self-defense.

Human shields are the final and most compelling justification. The world is currently witnessing urban warfare, as Russia bombs Ukrainian cities. To visualize, Russian aircraft recently targeted a maternity hospital. Even if Russia is using its right to collective self-defense, the question arises as to how it justifies violating the principle of distinction between combatants and civilians.

Putin states that "Ukraine is taking civilians and foreigners hostage to use them as human shields." According to this claim, civilians in the Mariupol hospital are the human shields being held by the Ukrainian regime.

Civilians trapped in the midst of urban armed conflicts are being portrayed as human shields. Civilians are generally used by terrorist groups as a typical guerilla tactic, yet at the same time, civilian proximity to war can be used as a shield to gain deterrence against other parties of war. The nomenclature of human shields becomes a tool to create new legal status with the intention of legitimizing the use of lethal force. Though human shields are protected civilians, they are transformed into a negligible subject by emphasizing the inadequacy of feasible precautions in armed conflicts similar to what is happening in Ukraine.

In(ability) of international law

Putin is under pressure to defend the war. That is one of the greatest (in) abilities of international law. Prior to the principle of non-use of force, any attack could be justified by sovereign states through a mere adherence to the Just War Theory. The League of Nations' Covenant of 1920, the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, and the U.N. Charter of 1945 all increasingly restrict the use of force. Finally, it is unquestionably universally agreed-upon norms that no one disputes; the principle of non-use of force is "jus cogens" (peremptory rule).

Contrary to this, numerous armed conflicts have occurred since 1945. It is necessary to find justification for armed conflict; the half-full glass of international law that cannot change reality. When we analyze the changes that have occurred in the international arena during the last century, it becomes necessary to legitimize armed conflict. However, it is just the bright side that can not alter reality.