Is Putin a legitimate military target for Ukraine?

Looking at what Russia did to Ukraine and putting aside all political and security consequences, from the international law perspective, is it possible to say if Russian President Vladimir Putin is a legitimate military target for Ukraine in this war, or not, and why, or is it much more complicated? Read a few comments. If you enjoy what I do, please support me on Ko-fi! Thank you.

Russian President Vladimir Putin. Credit: kremlin.ru

Paola Gaeta, Professor of International Law, Graduate Institute, Geneva

He is certainly a legitimate military target for the Ukrainians. Is anybody saying that Putin is not a military target for Ukraine? This would be very surprising.

There is an armed conflict between two states, the regulation is well established and requires to distinguishing in military attacks between military targets and civilians. The civilians and the civilian population cannot be the direct target of attacks (unless they direct take part in hostilities).  Members of the military forces are combatants and may be targeted. Putin is commander-in-chief, a member of the military and therefore a military target for Ukraine. Then in attacking military targets one shall ensure that there is no disproportionate civilian harm etc…

Janina Dill, Professor, Department of Politics and International Relations (DPIR), University of Oxford

When Russia invaded Ukraine last February, it started an international armed conflict, which triggers the applicability of IHL (International Humanitarian Law). Under IHL , specifically the principle of distinction, combatants are legitimate targets of intentional military attack. Mr Putin is the Commander in Chief of the Russian Armed Forces. He is a combatant and thus a lawful target. There are of course other legal considerations such as the proportionality and necessity of an attack, but an attack targeted at Mr Putin would not violate the principle of distinction. I note that Ukraine, of course, denies having launched this attack. 

Paul Arnell, Associate Professor, Law School, Robert Gordon University Aberdeen

The question of whether it is lawful under international law to kill Vladimir Putin is not entirely clear. Relevant factors include who (which country) is involved, the context, and how it is carried out.

Under Article 51 of the UN Charter states have a right to self-defence, which has been interpreted quite widely in the past. This limits the countries who can arguably take such action lawfully to those who have been subject to the threat or use of force, which Ukraine clearly has (although Russia suggests otherwise, describing their efforts as a ‘special military operation’. International humanitarian law places restrictions on armed forces in their conduct during both international and internal armed conflicts. This means that there is not unlimited discretion on how a killing make take place.

So overall, the answer to whether the killing of Putin is lawful depends on a number of factors. In some circumstances it would be unlawful, and in others it is probably legal.

Aurel Sari, Associate Professor of Public International Law, University of Exeter

The legal situation is straightforward. The law of armed conflict permits belligerents to use lethal force against lawful military objectives, which includes enemy soldiers and their commanders. Article 87(1) of the Russian Constitution provides that the President of the Russian Federation is the supreme commander-in-chief of the Russian armed forces. President Putin is therefore a lawful military objective and targeting him as part of the armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine is not an assassination, but a lawful act of war.