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

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

• Details
• Contents