THE HAGUE, July 15 — Ukraine’s use of maritime strikes against Russian naval targets is conducted under the right of self-defense as recognized in Article 51 of the UN Charter, officials in Kyiv have confirmed. The legal argument rests on the assertion that Russia’s full-scale invasion, which began on February 24, 2022, and the subsequent blockade of Ukrainian ports constitute an armed attack under international law.
The blockade itself is considered a violation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, known as UNCLOS, which guarantees freedom of navigation. Russia’s seizure of Ukrainian ports and the mining of waters also represent violations of international humanitarian law, according to the record of proceedings before multiple international tribunals.
Legal framework and international court actions
Ukraine has filed cases at the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. In November 2023, an ITLOS tribunal ordered Russia to release three Ukrainian naval vessels and their crews that were captured in 2018, prior to the full-scale invasion. The order has not been complied with, according to Ukrainian officials.
The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Russian officials for war crimes, including those related to attacks on civilian infrastructure. The legal framework also encompasses the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit attacks on civilian ships.
Ukraine’s use of uncrewed surface vessels and missiles against military targets is legal under international law, provided they distinguish between combatants and civilians, according to the legal arguments presented by Ukraine.
Strategic context of maritime operations
The strategic context of these operations is significant. Russia’s blockade of Ukrainian ports has severely restricted grain exports and other commercial shipping from the Black Sea, creating economic pressure on Ukraine and contributing to global food price volatility. The mining of waters by Russian forces has compounded the hazard for civilian vessels attempting to navigate the region.
Ukraine’s maritime strikes have targeted Russian naval assets, including vessels in port and at sea, as part of a broader effort to break the blockade and restore freedom of navigation. The operations rely on domestically developed uncrewed surface vessels and missile systems, which Ukrainian forces have deployed against military targets in the Black Sea and around the Crimean Peninsula.
Russia has characterized these strikes as escalatory and has threatened retaliation against commercial shipping in the region. The situation remains fluid, with both sides accusing the other of violating international law.
Dispute over legal justifications
The legal dispute centers on the interpretation of Article 51 of the UN Charter, which recognizes the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs. Ukraine argues that the invasion and blockade together constitute an ongoing armed attack, justifying defensive strikes against military targets. Russia contends that such strikes exceed the bounds of self-defense and constitute acts of aggression.
International legal scholars have noted that the question of whether Ukraine’s maritime strikes are proportionate and necessary under the circumstances remains a matter of debate. The requirement to distinguish between military and civilian targets is a core principle of international humanitarian law, and Ukraine maintains that its operations adhere to this standard.
The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea has yet to rule on the broader dispute over the blockade and the seizure of ports. The cases before the International Court of Justice are also pending, with no immediate timeline for resolution.
What to watch next
Observers are watching for further rulings from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, which could clarify the legal status of the blockade and the rights of Ukraine to conduct maritime strikes in self-defense. The International Criminal Court’s investigation into war crimes related to attacks on civilian infrastructure may also produce additional arrest warrants or charges. The situation on the ground in the Black Sea region remains tense, with both sides continuing to conduct military operations.
The outcome of the legal proceedings could have significant implications for the law of the sea and the conduct of naval warfare in future conflicts.
