THE HAGUE, July 13 — The legal framework governing Ukraine’s military operations against Russian targets rests on established provisions of international humanitarian law, officials and legal experts have confirmed. Under these rules, strikes such as the reported April 28, 2024 attack on an oil depot in Stavropol Krai are generally considered lawful if they target legitimate military objectives and adhere to the principles of distinction and proportionality.
The foundation for Ukraine’s right to self-defence is Article 51 of the UN Charter, which Ukraine has invoked following Russia’s full-scale invasion that began on February 24, 2022. That legal basis has been a central element of Kyiv’s diplomatic and military posture throughout the conflict.
According to the record, the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction over war crimes committed in Ukraine since 2014. The ICC issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin on March 17, 2023, for alleged war crimes related to the deportation of children. That warrant remains outstanding and has been a recurring point of tension in international forums.
The question of civilian harm
International humanitarian law prohibits attacks that cause disproportionate civilian harm. This principle of proportionality requires commanders to weigh the anticipated military advantage against the risk to civilian life and property. Any strike that fails this test is considered a violation, regardless of the target’s military status.
The reported attack on the Stavropol Krai oil depot, which occurred in April 2024, has been cited by legal analysts as an example of a strike against a target that could be classified as a legitimate military objective, given the role of fuel infrastructure in sustaining military operations. However, officials have stressed that each incident must be assessed on its own facts.
US restrictions and Ukrainian drone capabilities
The United States has provided Ukraine with military aid worth over $75 billion since 2022, according to official figures. However, Washington restricts the use of US-supplied weapons for strikes inside Russian territory. This policy has shaped the operational calculus for Ukrainian forces, who have relied on domestically produced drones for deep strikes beyond the border.
These Ukrainian-made systems are not subject to the same restrictions, according to the record. The distinction between US-supplied and Ukrainian-produced weaponry has become a key strategic factor.
Ukrainian officials have confirmed that their domestic drone programme has allowed them to strike targets inside Russia without violating the terms of American assistance. The Stavropol Krai attack, for instance, was conducted using Ukrainian drones, according to available reports.
Strategic context and the broader legal landscape
The legal debate over Ukraine’s strikes on Russian territory sits within a wider geopolitical contest. Moscow has characterised such attacks as escalatory and has argued that they violate international law. Western legal experts, however, have pointed to the UN Charter’s self-defence provision and the principles of international humanitarian law as providing a framework that permits such operations when conducted within established limits.
The ICC’s involvement in Ukraine dates back to 2014, when the court first opened a preliminary examination into alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in the country. That examination was upgraded to a full investigation in 2020, and the court has since issued multiple arrest warrants related to the conflict.
Looking ahead, the legal status of Ukraine’s strikes on Russian military targets will continue to be shaped by developments on the battlefield, the availability of evidence, and the willingness of international bodies to pursue accountability. The ICC’s jurisdiction and the evolving interpretation of proportionality under international humanitarian law remain the key legal benchmarks against which such operations are measured.
