Emerging Non-Traditional Norms of Military Humanitarian Intervention: Russian Rhetoric at the United Nations Towards Interventions in Georgia and Ukraine

Literature on military humanitarian intervention outlines the evolution of the humanitarian intervention norms, the emergent norm of responsibility to protect (R2P); as well as the existing inconsistent standards for legitimization of humanitarian intervention. Meanwhile, it is still being debated what are—exactly—the existing norms of humanitarian intervention; and when, where and for what reasons countries are justified in military intervention abroad for humanitarian reasons. The paper analyzes actions taken by the Russian Federation’s representatives at the United Nations (UN), with a particular focus on the rhetoric used to explain and justify Russian involvement in Georgia 2008, and Ukraine 2014-16. Key empirical evidence derives from an original, comprehensive dataset coding all relevant statements (N=29) made by Russian representatives at the UN regarding these conflicts. Additional evidence comes from news-media coverage and secondary sources both in English and Russian. The comparative analysis of the cases shows that Russia is simultaneously using the language of humanitarian intervention while challenging common justifications used for intervention. This analysis further demonstrates that, compared to the Georgia case, Russia much more frequently mentions certain nontraditional justifications (such as protection of compatriots, countering violent ideology, and protection of third parties) to justify its recent intervention in Ukraine.