SAIL: Russia, Ukraine & Europe

A Russian Drone Just Crashed in Romania. What International Law Says in 2 Minutes

Dr Yusra Suedi (SAIL) — Sat, 30 May 2026 14:59:24 GMT

Yup, Romania’s just been roped into the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict.

1. Did this break international law?

Yes, almost certainly, on two separate grounds.

First, airspace sovereignty. A foreign military drone entering Romanian airspace without permission is a violation of its airspace under the 1944 Chicago Convention.

Second, the laws of warfare. Even though the conflict is between Russia and Ukraine, neither can attack the other without taking all precautions to avoid harming other countries.

2. Is Russia actually responsible?

Most probably.

Under international law, responsibility requires two things: breach (did it violate a legal obligation? I covered this above) and attribution (was this Russia’s drone?).

Putin denies that it was Russia’s drone and suggested the drone might be Ukrainian.

But Romania’s foreign minister confirmed that it was a Russian drone carrying explosives, based on forensic analysis of the wreckage.

Putin has disputed the finding and demanded access to the wreckage. It would strengthen Romania’s case to share the evidence or invite independent third-party verification, but it’s not legally required to.

3. Can Romania strike Russia back?

No.

Romania’s right to self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter requires an “armed attack”.

International law interprets that threshold as requiring scale and gravity beyond a single errant drone.

4. So what can Romania actually do?

Expel Romanian diplomats from Russia (which it has done).

Close consulates.

Demand reparations through diplomatic channels.

A bigger move: Romania is a party to the International Criminal Court and could refer the incident to the Court to the existing Ukraine situation.

It could frame it as a war crime, if it can be proven that Russia was intentionally directing attacks against Romanian civilians.

5. What can NATO do?

Romania is a NATO member. It’s considering invoking Article 4 of NATO’s treaty, which triggers formal consultations between NATO members when one of them is threatened.

But the big NATO move would be Article 5: all members will defend an attacked member (because an attack against one is an attack against all).

NATO hasn’t done this (yet?). It’s blamed Russia and condemned Russia’s move for now.

This could be because NATO doesn’t consider this to be an ‘attack’ in legal terms. It could also be because it’s reluctant to escalate this into a full-blown world war (fair enough!).

6. Now what?

These types of spill overs can happen. A Ukrainian missile struck Poland and killed two people back in 2022.

The law is clear. The solution? Make enough noise that neither Russia nor Ukraine does this again, and keep a record for the day of reckoning when the war finally ends.

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

4 Years On: 4 International Law Takeaways from Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine (in 2 minutes)

Dr Yusra Suedi (SAIL) — Fri, 27 Feb 2026 08:00:18 GMT

It’s been four years since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Here are four international law aspects you should understand.

Subscribe now

1. Violation of the use of force

States cannot use force against other states.

There are only two exceptions: Self-defense, or UN Security Council authorisation. Russia had neither.

Russia claimed collective self-defense, saying it was defending Donetsk and Luhansk (i.e. the Donbas) from Ukraine.

International law does allow collective self-defense: If someone attacks your friend, you can help your friend defend themselves.

But your “friend” has to be a state.

Donetsk and Luhansk are not states - they’re internationally recognized as part of Ukraine.

Russia also claimed anticipatory self-defense, arguing Ukraine joining NATO posed an imminent threat.

But imminence means a threat that is instant and overwhelming, leaving no choice but to act.

That was not the case.

Finally, Russia claimed it was stopping a genocide by Ukraine against people in Donetsk and Luhansk.

But invading for humanitarian reasons (without UN approval) is not a recognized exception to the prohibition on force.

That’s why the invasion is widely seen as unlawful.

2. Violations of the laws of warfare

International law has rules on how war is fought.

Some core rules: You can’t target civilians (only soldiers). Can’t target civilian infrastructure like schools or hospitals. Can’t use means and methods of warfare that cause unnecessary suffering. Can’t damage the environment. (etc etc)

There have been credible judgments and reports of all these rules (and then some!) being violated.

This war has also accelerated the use of new technologies, like drones, AI-assisted weapons and cyber operations.

This makes applying the rules even harder.

3. Criminal accountability is moving slowly

Russia’s invasion is widely described as a crime of aggression (Article 8bis).

But the International Criminal Court (ICC) can’t prosecute the crime of aggression because Russia would have to be an ICC party (and it’s not).

That’s why discussions began about creating a special tribunal for the crime of aggression. Negotiations are still ongoing.

The ICC has, however, issued arrest warrants for Putin and other senior officials for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

ICC member states are supposed to arrest suspects who enter their territory. But so far, those facing warrants have simply avoided traveling to those countries.

So, justice is moving… just slowly (and only as far as politics allows…)!

Subscribe now

4. Ceasefire talks are ongoing

There have been multiple rounds of negotiations brokered by the U.S.

The leaked draft ceasefire proposal circulated at the end of 2025 was problematic (to say the least).

Nothing durable came from it.

A core sticking point is what happens to Donetsk and Luhansk. Who do they legally belong to?

Under international law, territory can’t be taken (and kept) by force, as Russia has done… But Ukraine is under pressure to compromise.

Stay tuned.

We’re almost at 1,000 SAIL readers; thank you! If you like SAIL, share it!

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

4 Ways Trump’s Ukraine-Russia Peace Plan Violates International Law (in 2 minutes)

Dr Yusra Suedi (SAIL) — Mon, 24 Nov 2025 09:01:25 GMT

‘Tis the season of ceasefire deals! (See my recent posts on ceasefire deals on Gaza and Thailand-Cambodia.)

Following years of conflict between Russia and Ukraine, including Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, the US and Russia drafted a proposal, which was leaked to the press.

Here are 4 ways that it violates international law:

It undermines Ukraine’s sovereignty

The plan says that “Ukraine’s sovereignty will be confirmed” (point 1).

But it also forces Ukraine to restrict its military size to max. 600,000 (point 6) and write in its constitution that it will never join NATO (point 7).

Sovereignty under international law includes a country’s right to govern its own military and choose its defensive alliances without interference.

This is a clear contradiction.

It normalises illegal control

The plan says that Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk “will be recognised as de facto Russian, including by the United States” (point 21).

In international law, de facto recognition means other countries would treat Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk as being run by Russia in practice, but not as legally belonging to Russia. On paper, they would still be Ukrainian territory.

The problem is that under international law, countries aren’t supposed to recognise territories taken by force. So even informal recognition could look like they’re legitimising Russia’s illegal takeover.

Subscribe now

It ignores international criminal law and human rights

The plan says “All parties involved in this conflict will receive full amnesty for their actions during the war and agree not to make any claims or consider any complaints in the future” (point 26).

The idea here is to cancel the International Criminal Court (ICC)’s arrest warrant on Putin. But the US or Russia can’t just wipe away charges for someone convicted of war crimes by an international court.

The idea is to also cancel setting up the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine, and Europe’s Register of Damage for Ukraine allowing victims to make reparations claims. But no single country has the authority to cancel international tribunals or victims’ rights to seek reparations under international law.

It risks being an invalid treaty under international law

This plan is set to become a legally binding treaty (point 27).

But under international law, a treaty can’t be valid if it was made under threats or by using force (Articles 51-52).

Ukraine is currently under heavy attack, and Putin just threatened that if Ukraine turned down the plan, Russian forces will advance further. Trump has also complained that Ukraine has shown “zero gratitude” for US efforts. In short, Ukraine is under a lot of pressure to accept this deal.

Even if Ukraine caves to such pressure, the treaty wouldn’t be valid.

Will it be adopted?

Probably not. Europe and Ukraine have rejected it and Trump says it’s “not the final offer”.

So… back to the drawing board!

Other SAIL posts you might enjoy:

Let me know what you think of this plan in the comments below!