[9] GEO-LEGAL DIMENSIONS OF CONFLICT: INDIA’S POSITION ON INTERNATIONAL LAW, WAR, AND SOVEREIGNTY AFTER THE UKRAINE INVASION

ARTICLE INFO: Date of Submission: Jan 23, 2026, Revised: Feb 10, 2026, Accepted: Feb 12 , 2026, CrossRef D.O.I : https://doi.org/10.56815/ijmrr.v5i2.2026.77-85. HOW TO CITE: Rakesh Kumar (2026). Geo-Legal Dimensions of Conflict: India’s Position on International Law, War, and Sovereignty after the Ukraine Invasion. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research & Reviews, 5(2), 77-85.

Abstract

This article discusses the intersection of geopolitics with International Law; by doing so the authors will explain how states take positions regarding the legality of war and the right to sovereignty based upon their own geopolitical interests and border disputes. In particular, this paper analyzes India's response to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine; the authors seek to determine how India reconciles its geopolitical interests with the UN Charter's prohibition against aggressive acts and affirmation of sovereignty in order to promote its national interest through foreign policy means, particularly through its relationship with Russia. Using the theories of Legal Realism and Geopolitical Theory, the authors analyze India's decision to abstain from voting on UN resolutions condemning Russia's actions, India's promotion of a peaceful resolution to the conflict, and India's use of the term "multipolarity" as a way of promoting an approach that is both normatively compliant and pragmatically beneficial for its geopolitical interests. Overall, the authors' research finds that India's position is reflective of the lessons India has learned in its border disputes with China along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) and in its dispute over Kashmir with Pakistan; specifically, India is using diplomatic approaches to engage with these countries, in order to avoid creating precedent that would undermine India's sovereign rights to territorial control. Additionally, the authors find that India is criticizing the selective enforcement of international law by developed countries; however, India's criticism of selective enforcement by developed countries has led to charges of hypocrisy by those same countries, as evidenced by sanctions imposed upon Russia in response to the invasion of Ukraine. The authors conclude that India's approach to resolving multipolar conflict through the lens of international law represents the views of the Global South, and contributes to the ongoing debate about how to reform international law to make it applicable equitably in times of conflict among multiple actors. Furthermore, the authors believe that the implications of this research are that there will be increased calls for reform of the United Nations system, and increased reliance on adaptive diplomacy in the era of hybrid warfare. Overall, this paper provides insight into how middle powers reconcile the laws of international relations with their ability to exercise political power in times of crisis.