Regime change on the pretext of forcible protection of nationals abroad: selected case studies including Ukraine, Dominican and Egypt

Abstract

Since 1945, multiple States, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel, France, and Belgium have consistently asserted that protectingthe lives of their citizens caught in violence abroad remains an acceptablejustification for the use of force. The view has been widely accepted by theinternational community, at least concerning hostage rescue and crisis evacuation military operations. Quite a scarce State practice regarding the thirdform of extraterritorial defence of nationals, forcible protection in the hostState, is much more controversial in reception. The Article aims to discuss thepermissibility of such protection on the example of the February 2022 Russianinvasion of Ukraine. As Moscow failed to achieve what was likely its main political objective, to overthrow the Kyiv government in a blitzkrieg militarycampaign, the analysis also addresses the question of whether the contemporary concept of extraterritorial protection of nationals from imminent dangerinvolves permissibility of regime change in the targeted State. The result ofthe analysis is unambiguous. Based on an examination of State practice, military doctrine documents and a cursory review of literature, the Article rejectsthe Kremlin’s claims involving both protection of Russian citizens in the territory of Ukraine and regime change in the targeted country.