As the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfolded, many countries condemned Russia's actions as unlawful violations of Ukraine's sovereignty and of the UN Charter's prohibition on the use of force. After Russia used its veto to block UN Security Council action on the crisis, countries invoked the Uniting for Peace resolution process to turn to the UN General Assembly. The General Assembly passed a resolution by overwhelming vote condemning Russia's aggression against Ukraine and later suspended Russia's membership in the UN Human Rights Council (HRC). The Security Council's paralysis, however, has prompted pointed questions, including from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, about the United Nations’ long-term efficacy.

Russian President Vladimir Putin's announcement on February 21 that Russia would recognize the independence of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine prompted the start of a cascade of condemnations of Russia for violating international law.Footnote ¹ UN Secretary-General António Guterres denounced the Donetsk and Luhansk announcement as “a violation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine and inconsistent with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”Footnote ² At an emergency UN Security Council meeting, convened at Ukraine's request on February 21, the Ukrainian representative decried Russia's “illegal and illegitimate decision . . . to recognize the occupied parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine as the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics,” and argued that “the entire membership of the United Nations is under attack . . . by the country that occupied the membership of the Security Council in 1991 bypassing the Charter of the United Nations; the country that occupied the parts of the territory of Georgia in 2008; and the country that occupied parts of Ukraine in 2014.”Footnote ³ In response, the Russian ambassador, who chaired the meeting because Russia held the rotating presidency of the Council, called Kyiv “bellicose,” and accused Ukraine of shelling civilians in the Donbas region.Footnote ⁴

On the evening of February 23, the Security Council convened another emergency session.Footnote ⁵ In his opening statement, Secretary-General Guterres called for peace, urging: “[I]f indeed an operation is being prepared, I have only one thing to say from the bottom of my heart: President Putin, stop your troops from attacking Ukraine. Give peace a chance. Too many people have already died.”Footnote ⁶ Although the meeting was styled as an “eleventh-hour effort to avoid full-scale conflict,”Footnote ⁷ news broke during the meeting that Putin had announced a “special military operation” in Ukraine.Footnote ⁸ Ukraine's ambassador told the Council, “As I was on my way here about an hour ago, my intention was to ask the Russian Ambassador to confirm, on the record, that the Russian troops would not start firing on Ukrainians today or go ahead with the offensive. That became useless 48 minutes ago because . . . his President declared war on Ukraine.”Footnote ⁹

Many Council members sharply condemned Russia's actions.Footnote ¹⁰ U.S. Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield stated, “Russia literally violated Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity on live television before the world. . . . Russia's attack on Ukraine is tantamount to an attack on the United Nations and every Member State in the Chamber tonight.”Footnote ¹¹ She further argued that “Putin delivered a message of war, in total disdain for the responsibility of the Council,” and urged the Council to act in response to the “grave emergency.”Footnote ¹² Others of the permanent five (P-5) members of the Security Council offered similar rebukes. The UK ambassador denounced “Russia's actions . . . [as] an assault on the Charter.”Footnote ¹³ The French representative argued,

Other Council members joined in the condemnations. The Albanian representative noted, “This is a confrontation between Russia and international law and the Charter of the United Nations” and called it “a dark hour not only for Ukraine, but for the entire international community, as we witness . . . a pure act of aggression.”Footnote ¹⁵ The Norwegian representative called Russia's actions “unjustified, unprovoked and irresponsible,”Footnote ¹⁶ and the Mexican representative said, “we cannot accept the invasion of one country by another, as it is contrary to international law.”Footnote ¹⁷ The Brazilian representative called “[t]he threat or use of force against the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of a State Member of the United Nations . . . unacceptable,” and urged the Security Council to “act according to its main purpose as holder of the primary responsibility under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.”Footnote ¹⁸ The representative from Gabon “reject[ed] this attack on the fundamental principles of the Charter of the United Nations,” and urged the “international community” to “focus[] its attention, with the same commitment and fervour, on all situations in all regions of the world where the security and dignity of peoples are under threat.”Footnote ¹⁹

Notably, several states did not join in the condemnations, instead couching their remarks in language focused on peace and de-escalation. The Chinese representative noted China's “consistent” position on “safeguarding the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all States,” and expressed “hope that all parties concerned will remain coolheaded and rational and commit themselves to enhancing dialogue and consultation to resolve the relevant issues properly through negotiations and address each other's legitimate security concerns, in line with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”Footnote ²⁰ Similarly, the representative of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) “stress[ed] the importance of adhering to the principles of international law and the Charter of the United Nations, particularly in settling international disputes through peaceful means and respecting the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of States,” and “reiterate[d] the importance of de-escalation, constructive dialogue and continued efforts to reach peaceful solutions that are consistent with international law and the Charter of the United Nations.”Footnote ²¹

The Russian representative defended Russia's actions, stating:

Russia also filed an Article 51 letter with the Security Council, claiming that Russia acted in self-defense and attaching Putin's speech announcing the “special military operation” in Ukraine.Footnote ²³ Among other claims in the speech, Putin pointed to Russia's need to counter NATO's expansion, arguing “the militarization of the territories adjacent to our borders, if we allow this, will remain for decades to come, perhaps forever, and will pose an ever-growing, totally unacceptable threat to Russia.”Footnote ²⁴ Calling Ukraine “our own historical territories,” Putin argued that the “policy of containment of Russia . . . is ultimately a matter of life and death, the question of our historical future as a people.”Footnote ²⁵ Putin claimed that the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics “appealed to Russia for help,” and that “in accordance with Article 51” of the UN Charter, he “decided to conduct a special military operation with the approval of the Federation Council of Russia and pursuant to the treaties on friendship and mutual assistance with the Donetsk People's Republic and the Lu[h]ansk People's Republic, as ratified by the [Russian] Federal Assembly on 22 February.”Footnote ²⁶

As the opening stages of the invasion unfolded on the night of February 23 on the U.S. East Coast and the morning of February 24 in Kyiv, governments across the world condemned Russia's violations of international law. U.S. President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. said:

In a televised address on February 24, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson declared that Putin “has attacked a friendly country without any provocation and without any credible excuse.”Footnote ²⁸ The French Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs called Russia's invasion “a brutal violation of international law” and noted that “France condemns in the strongest terms the military invasion of Ukraine launched by Russia overnight,” as well as “the use of Belarusian territory authorized by the Lukashenko regime to carry out this aggression against a sovereign country.”Footnote ²⁹ German Chancellor Olaf Scholz similarly called the Russian invasion “a blatant violation of international law,” and promised to coordinate with the G-7, NATO, and EU.Footnote ³⁰ The invasion prompted a personal visit by Pope Francis to Russia's ambassador in Rome to express concerns about the war—a “departure from diplomatic protocol,” whereby ambassadors are typically summoned to the Vatican, that is “unprecedented in living memory.”Footnote ³¹

A number of international bodies also issued statements condemning the invasion. On February 24, the leaders of the G7 released a statement denouncing Russia's “military aggression . . . against the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, directed partly from Belarusian soil,” and noting that “[t]his unprovoked and completely unjustified attack . . . was preceded by fabricated claims and unfounded allegations” and “constitutes a serious violation of international law and a grave breach of the United Nations Charter.”Footnote ³² After an emergency meeting on February 25, NATO released a statement declaring:

The Organization of American States also published a declaration signed by twenty-three of its thirty-five member states that “[s]trongly condemn[ed] the unlawful, unjustified, and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation and call[ed] for the immediate withdrawal of the military presence and the cessation of any further military actions in that country.”Footnote ³⁴

As in the UN Security Council, some countries maintained a more neutral position. In a press conference on February 24, China's Foreign Ministry spokesperson said, “[t]he legitimate security concerns of all sides should be respected and resolved. We hope all sides will keep the door to peace open and continue to work for deescalation through dialogue, consultation and negotiation and prevent further escalation.”Footnote ³⁵ Afghanistan, India, and Nigeria, among others, also released more neutral statements without singling out either side of the conflict.Footnote ³⁶

A few countries appeared to side with Russia. Iran's Minister of Foreign Affairs Hossein Amirabdollahian stated on Twitter, “The #Ukraine crisis is rooted in NATO's provocations. We don't believe that resorting to war is a solution. Imperative to establish ceasefire & to find a political and democratic resolution.”Footnote ³⁷ Venezuela's foreign affairs ministry similarly blamed NATO for the crisis.Footnote ³⁸

Russia's status as one of the veto-wielding, P-5 members of the UN Security Council has prevented the Council from acting to address the crisis. Eighty-two countries submitted a draft Security Council resolution that, among other things, would have condemned Russian aggression against Ukraine, called for an immediate cessation of hostilities and Russian withdrawal from Ukraine, and condemned Russia's recognition of the independence of regions of Ukraine.Footnote ³⁹ When put to a vote on February 25, eleven countries voted in favor; India, China, and the UAE abstained; and as expected, Russia exercised its veto.Footnote ⁴⁰ Denunciations of Russia from participating countries were once again sharp and nearly unanimous. For example, the Kenyan ambassador argued:

Even India, which abstained, issued what appeared to be veiled criticism of Russia. India's representative emphasized that “[t]he contemporary global order was built upon the Charter of the United Nations, international law and respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States,” and called it “regrettable that the path of diplomacy was given up.”Footnote ⁴² China, however, was less critical of Russia. China's representative argued:

In an effort to work around Russia's veto in the Security Council, countries turned to an emergency session of the UN General Assembly, convened pursuant to the Uniting for Peace resolution. The resolution was adopted in 1950 in response to Russia's use of its veto to prevent Security Council action with respect to the Korean war.Footnote ⁴⁴ It provides that:

In light of Russia's veto of the Ukraine resolution on February 25 and pursuant to the process specified in the Uniting for Peace Resolution, the UN Security Council on February 27 adopted a resolution calling an emergency special session of the General Assembly about the Ukraine crisis.Footnote ⁴⁶ In the Security Council, eleven countries voted in favor of the resolution, three countries (China, India, and the UAE) abstained, and Russia voted against.Footnote ⁴⁷ Russia could not veto the resolution because “referral to the General Assembly is considered to constitute a procedural determination and hence [is] not subject to such blocking power.”Footnote ⁴⁸

From February 28 to March 2, the General Assembly met in an emergency special session with more than one hundred states addressing the assembly.Footnote ⁴⁹ On March 2, the General Assembly adopted a resolution condemning Russia's actions by a vote of 141 in favor and five votes against,Footnote ⁵⁰ with thirty-five abstentions.Footnote ⁵¹ The resolution, titled “Aggression against Ukraine,” provides, in relevant part, that the General Assembly:

1. 1. Reaffirms its commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders, extending to its territorial waters;

2. 2. Deplores in the strongest terms the aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine in violation of Article 2(4) of the Charter;

3. 3. Demands that the Russian Federation immediately cease its use of force against Ukraine and to refrain from any further unlawful threat or use of force against any Member State;

4. 4. Also demands that the Russian Federation immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its military forces from the territory of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders;

5. 5. Deplores the 21 February 2022 decision by the Russian Federation related to the status of certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine as a violation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine and inconsistent with the principles of the Charter;

6. 6. Demands that the Russian Federation immediately and unconditionally reverse the decision related to the status of certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine;

7. 7. Calls upon the Russian Federation to abide by the principles set forth in the Charter and the Declaration on Friendly Relations;

8. 8. Calls upon the parties to abide by the Minsk agreements and to work constructively in relevant international frameworks, including in the Normandy format and Trilateral Contact Group, towards their full implementation;

9. 9. Demands all parties to allow safe and unfettered passage to destinations outside of Ukraine and to facilitate the rapid, safe and unhindered access to humanitarian assistance for those in need in Ukraine, to protect civilians, including humanitarian personnel and persons in vulnerable situations, including women, older persons, persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples, migrants and children, and to respect human rights;

10. 10. Deplores the involvement of Belarus in this unlawful use of force against Ukraine, and calls upon it to abide by its international obligations;

11. 11. Condemns all violations of international humanitarian law and violations and abuses of human rights, and calls upon all parties to respect strictly the relevant provisions of international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional Protocol I thereto of 1977, as applicable, and to respect international human rights law, and in this regard further demands that all parties ensure respect for and the protection of all medical personnel and humanitarian personnel exclusively engaged in medical duties, their means of transport and equipment, as well as hospitals and other medical facilities;

12. 12. Demands that all parties fully comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law to spare the civilian population, and civilian objects, refraining from attacking, destroying, removing or rendering useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, and respecting and protecting humanitarian personnel and consignments used for humanitarian relief operations . . . .Footnote ⁵²

Days later, the General Assembly also voted to suspend Russia from the HRC.Footnote ⁵³ The 2006 General Assembly resolution that established the HRC provides that an HRC member that “commits gross and systematic violations of human rights” may be suspended from the Council by “a two-thirds majority of the [General Assembly] members present and voting.”Footnote ⁵⁴ The United States led the push to suspend Russia's membership,Footnote ⁵⁵ with Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield arguing, “Russia should not have a position of authority in a body . . . whose very purpose . . . is to promote respect for human rights. Not only is it the height of hypocrisy—it is dangerous.”Footnote ⁵⁶ In introducing the suspension resolution in the General Assembly, the Ukrainian representative highlighted recently discovered evidence of “atrocities uncovered in the wake of [Russia's] withdrawal from Bucha and other Ukrainian cities and villages,” and urged countries not to abstain.Footnote ⁵⁷ The resolution, which cited “reports of violations and abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law by the Russian Federation, including gross and systematic violations and abuses of human rights,”Footnote ⁵⁸ was adopted on April 7 with ninety-four votes in favor, twenty-four votes against, and fifty-eight abstentions.Footnote ⁵⁹ China, which abstained, expressed concern that the vote sets a “new dangerous precedent.”Footnote ⁶⁰ Human Rights Watch's UN Director Louis Charbonneau commended the vote, calling it “a crystal-clear message to Russia's leadership that a government whose military is routinely committing horrific rights violations has no business on the UN Human Rights Council.”Footnote ⁶¹ After the vote, Russia announced it was quitting the Council, arguing that “the Council was monopolized by a group of States who use it for their short-term aims.”Footnote ⁶²

Although Russia's veto continues to stymie Security Council actions, the Council has continued to meet to discuss various aspects of the evolving conflict, including the humanitarian crisis, claims of the use of biological weapons, and accountability for war crimes.Footnote ⁶³ On April 5, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky addressed the Security Council and raised pointed questions about the future of the United Nations. Zelensky asked, “Where, then, is the security that the Security Council needs to guarantee? It is not there. . . . It is obvious that this key global institution, which must ensure that all aggressors be brought back to peace, simply cannot work effectively.”Footnote ⁶⁴ He argued that Russia,

In the wake of Zelensky's challenge, the General Assembly on April 26 adopted a resolution requiring that whenever a P-5 member exercises its veto, the General Assembly must meet and hold debate on the situation that prompted the veto within ten days.Footnote ⁶⁶ The resolution garnered more than eighty co-sponsors, including the United States and the United Kingdom, and the General Assembly adopted it by consensus.Footnote ⁶⁷