In February, Russia began a full-scale military action against Ukraine. This war in Ukraine constitutes the latest in a series of incidents since the end of the Cold War in which Russia has sought to reassert authority over former Soviet states. In this case, as in incidents past, Russia has offered a familiar series of purported legal justifications pertaining to the right of self-determination of peoples and permitted exceptions to international law’s prohibition on the use of force.

Notwithstanding those arguments, from the outset, many in the international community condemned Russia’s actions as violating fundamental norms of international law. Soon afterward, observers pointed to evidence of war crimes by the Russian military. Now, more than nine months into the conflict, questions remain. What can be said for Russia’s claims, Ukraine’s options, international expectations, and modern conflicts? What effect may this have on traditional legal expectations of the civilized world? Additionally, with the prospect of a costly and protracted war impacting global security and the people of the region for generations to come, what are the best and worst possible outcomes? Our panel of experts discussed these issues.

Featured:

Mr. Michael Allen, Managing Director and Partner, Beacon Global Strategies
Hon. Marshall S. Billingslea, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute; Former Special Presidential Envoy, U.S. Department of State
Maj. Gen. Charles J. Dunlap Jr., Professor of the Practice of Law, Duke University School of Law; Executive Director, Center on Law, Ethics and National Security, Duke University School of Law; Retired USAF Major General
Prof. Angela Stent, Senior Nonresident Fellow, The Brookings Institution
Moderator: Hon. Chad Readler, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.