The Effectiveness of International Law in the Russia and Ukraine Conflict (2022-2024)

There are different interpretations on what effectiveness in international law means. In this dissertation, effectiveness is assessed in the context of the Russia and Ukraine conflict with particular emphasis on the prohibition of the use of force and the principle of territorial integrity. It is guided by the central research question: to what extent, and in what ways, has international law remained effective in practice in response to the Russia–Ukraine conflict? Rather than equating effectiveness with full compliance or successful enforcement, the study examines how international law operates across three interconnected dimensions: normative effectiveness, state compliance, and institutional effectiveness. At the normative level, international law has remained effective in offering clear and widely accepted standards of legality. Russia’s use of force was repeatedly identified as unlawful by a broad range of states and international bodies. Legal arguments invoking self-defense and genocide prevention failed to gain acceptance. The core rules governing the use of force retained their authority and clarity throughout the conflict. In terms of compliance, the conflict reveals divergent patterns among Russia, Ukraine, and third states. Russia’s persistent non-compliance shows the limits of international law in constraining a determined major power. Ukraine, by contrast, consistently framed its conduct within the language of self-defense and actively engaged international legal institutions, reinforcing its position as an injured state acting within the law. Most notably, international law proved more effective in shaping the behavior of third states, as reflected in widespread condemnation, sanctions, respect to Ukraine’s recognized territorial borders, military support framed in legal terms, and engagement with accountability mechanisms. At the institutional level, international law activated multiple mechanisms of response through the United Nations, international courts, and regional organizations. Enforcement remained constrained by structural features such as veto power and dependence on state cooperation. Institutions nonetheless continued to articulate legal assessments, initiate proceedings, and anchor political and economic measures in legal claims. Overall, the dissertation contributes to contemporary debates on international law’s effectiveness by demonstrating that institutional constraints do not negate the law’s authority or relevance. They condition how international law operates, and where its effects are most likely to be observed in practice.