On Jan. 22, Russian state news agency RIA Novosti reported that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in an interview with Bloomberg News, had called for Western occupation of his country.
The Russian state agency was referring to a Jan. 22 interview from Davos, in which Zelenskyy discussed the possibility of having Western peacekeepers deployed to Ukraine to prevent Russia from a future invasion if a ceasefire is reached.
RIA Novosti distorted Zelenskyy’s words, claiming:
“Volodymyr Zelenskyy once again called for the occupation of Ukraine by Western troops.”
That claim is false.
Occupation occurs when foreign armed forces control a territory without the host nation’s consent, imposing military authority.
When a state invites foreign troops and agrees to their presence on its territory, it is not considered occupation under international law as there is no hostile takeover or enforced control.
“In international humanitarian law, a territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the adverse foreign armed forces,” says an online casebook on international humanitarian law published by the International Committee of the Red Cross. “When a State consents to the presence of foreign troops, there is no occupation.”
Zelenskyy told Bloomberg that any potential peace agreement with Russia would require security protocols to prevent the Kremlin from breaking the truce. Such protocols could include deployment of international peacekeeping forces to Ukraine. U.S. troops, he added, would need to be part of such a mission if it were to be effective, as European forces alone may not be sufficient to deter Russia.
“The laws of war fall into two basic types: one set governs whether it is legal for a state to go to war against another, or jus ad bellum,” wrote Lise Morje Howard, president of the Academic Council on the United Nations System, in a piece published by the U.S. Institute of Peace in 2022.
Jus ad bellum is a concept of just war, of which only three are considered under international law:
1) In self-defense;
2) When one state asks another state to send troops (for example, Russia legally sent troops to Syria by invitation of the Assad government); and
3) If the U.N. Security Council determines that the war is legal under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter (for example, after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the Security Council authorized a multinational military response).
Per Howard, a state’s invitation of international troops falls under the concept of jus ad bellum, and such a case does not require a United Nations authorization, which could never happen, as Russia, a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council (UNSC), holds veto power and has previously blocked resolutions concerning Ukraine.
If the UNSC is deadlocked, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) can convene under the “Uniting for Peace” resolution to recommend collective measures, including peacekeeping forces. While these recommendations are influential, they are not legally binding.
With UNGA support, a coalition of member states could form a multinational peacekeeping force. Although not under direct U.N. command, this force would operate with U.N. endorsement, lending it international legitimacy.
An example of a multinational peacekeeping force operating without direct UNSC authorization is the Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula.
The MFO was established shortly after the 1981 Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel. It was not a U.N. peacekeeping mission, as it did not have the direct authorization of the UNSC. However, the MFO was created by the United States, Egypt, and Israel, with additional contributions from other countries.
