Understanding Neutrality in International Law: India’s Stance on Russia-Ukraine Conflict

The Russia-Ukraine war, ongoing since February 2022, has brought the Law of Neutrality under international law into sharp focus, raising questions about its relevance and application in modern conflicts. India, adopting a stance of “proactive neutrality,” has navigated this war with a delicate balance, abstaining from UN resolutions condemning Russia while advocating for peace. This ultra-detailed blog explores the Law of Neutrality’s legal framework, its evolution, and India’s role in the Russia-Ukraine conflict as of June 2025, analyzing the implications for international law and India’s global standing.

Introduction: The Law of Neutrality and the Russia-Ukraine War

The Russia-Ukraine war, which began on February 24, 2022, with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, has reshaped global geopolitics and challenged the principles of international law, including the Law of Neutrality. As of June 3, 2025, the conflict shows no signs of resolution, with both sides entrenched in a prolonged struggle that has resulted in significant civilian casualties, global economic disruptions, and a re-examination of legal norms governing armed conflicts. The Law of Neutrality, a cornerstone of international law, dictates the rights and obligations of states that choose not to participate in a conflict. However, the war has sparked debates about its relevance, especially as many states have provided military support to Ukraine, blurring traditional notions of neutrality.

India, a major global player with historical ties to Russia, has adopted a stance of “proactive neutrality,” refusing to publicly condemn Russia while advocating for peace through dialogue. This position has drawn scrutiny from the West, which sees India’s neutrality as a subtle pro-Russia tilt, while also earning praise for its diplomatic balancing act. This ultra-detailed blog examines the Law of Neutrality under international law, its application in the Russia-Ukraine war, and India’s role as a neutral state, exploring the legal, geopolitical, and ethical dimensions as of mid-2025.

Join Telegram Community

Join WhatsApp Community

Explore Courses

1. Historical Foundations of the Law of Neutrality

The Law of Neutrality has its roots in customary international law, formalized through treaties in the early 20th century. Key legal instruments include:

Hague Convention (V) of 1907 (Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Case of War on Land): Outlines the obligations of neutral states to prevent belligerents from using their territory for military purposes and to treat all parties impartially.
Hague Convention (XIII) of 1907 (Concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War): Governs neutrality in maritime contexts, prohibiting neutral states from supplying warships or allowing belligerent naval operations in their waters.
Customary International Law: Since the 1990s, state practice has been inconsistent, raising questions about the existence of customary norms supplementing these treaties.

Neutrality traditionally requires states to remain impartial, abstaining from providing military support to any belligerent party and preventing their territory from being used for hostile actions. In return, neutral states are entitled to have their sovereignty respected by belligerents.

2. Core Principles of Neutrality in International Armed Conflicts (IACs)

The Law of Neutrality applies only during an international armed conflict (IAC), defined as any use of force between states. In the Russia-Ukraine war, an IAC has been ongoing since Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, intensifying with the full-scale invasion in 2022. Key principles include:

Impartiality: Neutral states must treat all belligerents equally, refraining from actions that favor one side, such as supplying weapons or allowing military transit.
Abstention: Neutral states must not participate in hostilities or provide war-related goods, including lethal and non-lethal materials.
Sovereignty Protection: Belligerents must respect the territorial integrity of neutral states, refraining from attacks or violations of their airspace, land, or waters.
Enforcement Challenges: The law lacks a robust enforcement mechanism, especially when a permanent UN Security Council member like Russia, with veto power, is a belligerent, as seen in the Ukraine conflict.

3. Evolution of Neutrality: Qualified and Benevolent Neutrality

The Russia-Ukraine war has highlighted a shift in the application of neutrality, with concepts like “qualified neutrality” and “benevolent neutrality” gaining traction:

Qualified Neutrality: Some scholars argue that neutral states can distinguish between an aggressor and a victim, providing support to the latter without violating neutrality. In Ukraine’s case, over 30 states, including the U.S. and EU members, have supplied lethal aid, citing Russia’s aggression as justification.
Benevolent Neutrality: States may provide non-lethal support (e.g., humanitarian aid) to one side while maintaining formal neutrality. This practice has become more feasible due to modern technology, such as airlifting supplies or sharing intelligence, which is harder for belligerents to detect or counter.
Criticism of Qualified Neutrality: Critics argue that allowing states to unilaterally determine an aggressor undermines the impartiality principle, risking escalation. For example, Russia has warned that NATO arms shipments to Ukraine could lead to “unpredictable consequences,” though it has not yet acted on these threats as of June 2025.

4. Neutrality and Modern Warfare Challenges

The Russia-Ukraine conflict has exposed the limitations of traditional neutrality laws in the context of modern warfare:

Technological Advances: The use of drones, 3D-printed weapons, and cyber operations complicates enforcement. Neutral states can now provide intangible support (e.g., intelligence sharing) without being easily detected.
Economic Sanctions: The West’s sanctions on Russia, while not a direct violation of neutrality, challenge impartiality by economically pressuring one belligerent. States like India, which increased imports of discounted Russian oil, face accusations of indirectly supporting Russia.
UN Security Council Paralysis: Russia’s veto power has prevented UNSC action, leading some states to bypass traditional neutrality obligations, arguing that Russia’s aggression voids their impartiality duties.

5. Consequences of Violating Neutrality

Neutral states that fail to uphold their obligations risk losing their neutral status, though this does not automatically make them co-belligerents. For instance:

Providing weapons, as the U.S. has done for Ukraine, violates traditional neutrality but does not necessarily make the U.S. a party to the conflict unless it engages in direct hostilities.
Russia could, in theory, take proportionate countermeasures against neutral states supplying Ukraine, but its battlefield struggles have limited its ability to do so as of mid-2025.

The Russia-Ukraine War: A Test for Neutrality

The Russia-Ukraine war, now in its fourth year as of June 2025, has been a crucible for testing the Law of Neutrality:

Timeline of Key Events:
- February 16, 2022: Russia’s parliament recognized two eastern Ukrainian regions as independent, escalating tensions.
- February 24, 2022: Russia launched a full-scale invasion, triggering global condemnation and Western sanctions.
- March 2022: India abstained from UN resolutions condemning Russia, signaling its neutral stance.
- April 2022: The U.S. passed the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act, providing military aid and challenging traditional neutrality norms.
- September 2024: Indian PM Narendra Modi met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in New York, reiterating India’s commitment to peace.
Global Responses:
- Over 30 states, including the U.S. and EU, have provided Ukraine with lethal aid, totaling billions of dollars, justifying their actions under qualified neutrality.
- States like Switzerland have adhered to strict neutrality, denying military support to Ukraine, while others, like India, have adopted a more nuanced approach.
Impact on International Law: The war has accelerated debates about the relevance of neutrality, with some arguing it may become “apologetic” (i.e., subject to political interpretation) or even obsolete if state practice continues to favor qualified neutrality.

India’s Role in the Russia-Ukraine War: A Case Study in Proactive Neutrality

1. India’s Historical Approach to Neutrality

India’s foreign policy has long been rooted in non-alignment, a principle established during the Cold War under the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). Key historical actions include:

Korean War (1950-53): India played a mediator role, co-chairing the International Commission for Supervision and Control, showcasing its commitment to neutrality and peace.
Vietnam War (1950s-60s): India criticized superpower interventions while maintaining neutrality.
Post-Cold War Shift: India transitioned to “multi-alignment,” building ties with both Western powers and Russia while preserving strategic autonomy.

2. India’s Stance on the Russia-Ukraine War

Since the war’s onset, India has adopted a policy of “proactive neutrality,” characterized by:

Abstention from UN Votes: India has consistently abstained from UN Security Council, General Assembly, and Human Rights Council resolutions condemning Russia, including the September 30, 2022, vote on Russia’s annexation of four Ukrainian regions.
Calls for Peace: PM Narendra Modi has emphasized dialogue and diplomacy, stating in September 2022 to Russian President Vladimir Putin, “Today’s era is not of war.” Modi reiterated this stance in meetings with Zelenskyy in August 2024 and September 2024.
Humanitarian Aid: India has provided medicines, medical equipment, and relief materials to Ukraine, balancing its neutrality with humanitarian commitments.
Economic Ties with Russia: India increased imports of discounted Russian oil, reaching record levels by late 2022, despite Western pressure to limit purchases. This move has been criticized as indirectly supporting Russia but aligns with India’s energy security needs.

3. Drivers of India’s Neutrality

India’s position is shaped by a complex interplay of strategic, economic, and geopolitical factors:

Defense Dependence on Russia: Russia supplies over 60% of India’s military equipment, including advanced systems like the S-400 missile defense system. India fears that condemning Russia could disrupt this supply chain, critical for countering threats from China and Pakistan.
Geopolitical Balancing: India seeks to maintain ties with both Russia and the West to counter China’s influence in the Indo-Pacific. A closer Russia-China axis, exacerbated by Western sanctions, could undermine India’s security, especially given ongoing border tensions with China.
Historical Ties with Russia: India and Russia share a decades-long partnership dating back to the Soviet era, including diplomatic support on issues like Kashmir. This “special relationship” influences India’s reluctance to criticize Moscow.
Non-Interference Principle: India’s foreign policy emphasizes non-interference in other states’ affairs, a stance reinforced by its own sensitivities over issues like Kashmir.
Economic Pragmatism: Buying discounted Russian oil has saved India billions, helping manage inflation amid global energy price spikes caused by the war.

4. India’s Potential as a Mediator

India’s neutral stance positions it as a potential mediator in the conflict:

Diplomatic Engagement: Modi’s meetings with Putin and Zelenskyy in 2024 signal India’s willingness to facilitate dialogue. India’s ability to “pick up the phone and talk to both sides,” as noted by experts, enhances its mediation potential.
Historical Precedent: India’s success in mediating during the Korean War provides a blueprint for its role in Ukraine.
Challenges: Russia’s reluctance to negotiate and Ukraine’s insistence on territorial integrity complicate mediation efforts. Additionally, India’s perceived pro-Russia tilt may undermine its credibility with Ukraine and the West.

5. Criticism and Support for India’s Neutrality

Western Criticism: The U.S. and EU have expressed disappointment, with President Joe Biden calling India’s stance “somewhat shaky” in 2022. Western leaders argue that India’s neutrality undermines the rules-based international order, especially given Russia’s violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty.
Domestic Debate: Indian opposition leaders, like P. Chidambaram, have urged the government to condemn Russia more explicitly, arguing that neutrality compromises India’s moral standing.
Support from Analysts: Some experts, like Swaran Singh of Jawaharlal Nehru University, praise India’s “proactive neutrality” as a pragmatic approach that maximizes benefits while minimizing risks. India’s humanitarian aid to Ukraine and calls for peace are seen as constructive contributions.

6. Implications for India’s Global Standing

India’s neutrality has both strengthened and strained its international relations:

Strained Ties with the West: India’s refusal to align with Western sanctions and its oil purchases from Russia have created tensions, though the West has refrained from imposing sanctions on India due to its strategic importance in countering China.
Enhanced Role in the Global South: India’s leadership in the G20 and its focus on issues like food security resonate with developing nations, many of which have also adopted neutral stances.
Risk of Isolation: If the war escalates further, India’s neutrality could alienate it from both sides, leaving it without sufficient support in future crises, such as a potential conflict with China.

The Broader Implications for the Law of Neutrality

The Russia-Ukraine war has profound implications for the Law of Neutrality:

Erosion of Impartiality: The widespread provision of military aid to Ukraine suggests a trend toward qualified neutrality, where moral judgments about aggression override traditional impartiality. This shift risks undermining the law’s core purpose of preventing conflict escalation.
Technological Challenges: Advances in warfare, such as cyber operations and intelligence sharing, make it harder to enforce neutrality, as neutral states can provide support discreetly.
Geopolitical Polarization: The war has deepened divisions between the West and non-Western states, with many in the Global South, including India, resisting pressure to take sides. This polarization may lead to a fragmented application of neutrality laws.
Future Scenarios: If state practice continues to favor qualified neutrality, the law may either adapt to accommodate such actions or risk obsolescence, as argued by some scholars. Alternatively, a reaffirmation of strict neutrality by states like Switzerland could preserve its relevance.

Conclusion: Navigating Neutrality in a Polarized World

The Russia-Ukraine war has tested the Law of Neutrality, revealing its strengths and limitations in addressing modern conflicts. While the law remains a vital framework for preventing escalation, its application is increasingly shaped by geopolitical realities, technological advancements, and moral considerations. India’s “proactive neutrality” exemplifies the challenges and opportunities of maintaining impartiality in a polarized world. By balancing its strategic interests, advocating for peace, and engaging with both belligerents, India has positioned itself as a potential mediator while safeguarding its national security.

However, India’s neutrality is not without risks. As the war continues into 2025, India must navigate Western pressure, manage its ties with Russia, and address domestic calls for a stronger moral stance. The broader implications for international law are equally significant, as the war may redefine the boundaries of neutrality for future conflicts. For now, India’s role underscores the enduring relevance of neutrality as a tool for diplomacy, even as the global order grapples with new challenges.

Call-to-Action

What are your thoughts on India’s neutrality in the Russia-Ukraine war? Do you think the Law of Neutrality needs reform to address modern warfare? Share your views in the comments below! For more insights on international law and global conflicts, subscribe to our blog and follow us on social media. Let’s foster a deeper understanding of these critical issues together! #RussiaUkraineWar #LawOfNeutrality #IndiaForeignPolicy #InternationalLaw

FAQs on the Law of Neutrality and India’s Role

How does India’s neutrality impact its relations with the West?
India’s neutrality has strained ties with the West, which seeks a stronger stance against Russia, but the West refrains from pressuring India due to its strategic role in countering China.

What is the Law of Neutrality under international law?
The Law of Neutrality governs the rights and duties of states not participating in an international armed conflict, requiring impartiality, abstention from hostilities, and respect for their sovereignty by belligerents.

How has the Russia-Ukraine war challenged the Law of Neutrality?
The war has seen many states provide military aid to Ukraine, adopting “qualified neutrality” by distinguishing Russia as the aggressor, challenging the traditional principle of impartiality.

What is India’s stance on the Russia-Ukraine war as of June 2025?
India has adopted “proactive neutrality,” abstaining from UN resolutions condemning Russia, providing humanitarian aid to Ukraine, and advocating for peace through dialogue.

Why has India chosen neutrality in the conflict?
India’s neutrality is driven by its defense dependence on Russia, historical ties, the need to counter China, and its non-interference principle, balanced against economic benefits like discounted Russian oil.

How has India’s neutrality been received globally?
The West has criticized India’s stance as “somewhat shaky,” while some analysts praise its pragmatic approach. India’s humanitarian efforts and peace advocacy have earned support from the Global South.

Can India play a mediator role in the Russia-Ukraine war?
Yes, India’s neutral stance and ties with both Russia and Ukraine position it as a potential mediator, though challenges include Russia’s reluctance to negotiate and India’s perceived pro-Russia tilt.

What are the implications of the war for the future of neutrality laws?
The war may lead to a redefinition of neutrality, either adapting to accommodate qualified neutrality or risking obsolescence if state practice continues to prioritize moral judgments over impartiality.