RUSSIA RUNNING ROGUE?: HOW THE LEGAL JUSTIFICATIONS FOR RUSSIAN INTERVENTION IN GEORGIA AND UKRAINE RELATE TO THE U.N. LEGAL ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION Following the Russian intervention in Georgia and Ukraine, much of the international community characterized Russia as a revisionist power that gives no heed to international law. 1 The Russian invasion provided a flashback to the Westphalian system 2 in its full-fledged military assault on Georgia and swift annexation of Crimea. The times have changed since the creation of the United Nations (UN), however. The UN Charter was thought "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war ... [and] to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest." 3 The question now becomes: how do Russia's recent interventions relate to the UN legal order? The UN legal order, which Part II of this Comment defines in detail, provides states with a legal framework that arises from three sources: (1) the UN Charter; (2) Security Council Resolutions; and (3) General Assembly Resolutions. Surprisingly to some, Russia purportedly values adherence to international law, 4 and, consequently, sets forth carefully crafted arguments to justify its actions in Georgia and Ukraine. Russia's perspective on the UN Legal Order brings a level of rigor to international law that manifests itself in strict interpretations of the relevant underlying legal principles. The problem remains that many other states do not share Russia's stringent perspective. Like most states in the international system, Russia often behaves in accordance with its self-interest. On September 3, 2008, ...