Make Putin Pay
§ The Legal CaseLegal analysis · briefing

The legal case for repurposing Russia's frozen assets

Under international law, Russia bears a binding obligation to compensate Ukraine for the damage caused by its war of aggression. The legal framework for enforcing that obligation through the transfer of frozen sovereign assets is well-established, well-supported, and actionable now.

02The legal framework

Four pillars of the legal case

The case rests on four foundations, established in customary international law and codified in the Articles on State Responsibility.

  1. I.

    Russia's reparations obligation

    Under customary international law and the UN Charter, states that commit internationally wrongful acts (including wars of aggression) bear a legal obligation to make full reparation for all resulting injury. The UN General Assembly affirmed this in Resolution ES-11/5 (November 2022), calling on Russia to compensate Ukraine for all damage caused by its unlawful conduct.

  2. II.

    The doctrine of countermeasures

    International law permits states to take countermeasures (acts that would otherwise be unlawful) in response to a serious violation of international obligations. As codified in the Articles on State Responsibility (ARSIWA), countermeasures may be used to induce the offending state to cease its wrongful conduct and fulfill its obligation to pay reparations.

  3. III.

    Third-party standing

    States other than Ukraine are legally entitled to join in countermeasures. Russia's aggression violates peremptory norms (jus cogens) owed to the international community as a whole: erga omnes obligations. Under ARSIWA Article 48, any state may invoke Russia's responsibility and take collective countermeasures in response.

  4. IV.

    Transfer as lawful countermeasure

    The transfer of frozen Russian state assets to an international compensation mechanism would constitute a proportionate, reversible, and lawful countermeasure. It would enforce an obligation Russia already owes, not “seizure” in the confiscatory sense. Any transferred amount would be credited against Russia's total reparations liability.

Current legal architecture

States have already accepted the principle that Russian sovereign assets may and should serve Ukraine's needs. The debate has moved from whether to act to  how to structure action that is lawful, durable, and fairly distributed.

  1. Dec 2025The Council of the EU enacted legislation indefinitely immobilising Russian state assets until Russia ends its aggression and pays reparations, the first binding multilateral commitment of its kind.
  2. Dec 2025The EU and 35 countries signed the Council of Europe Convention establishing an  International Claims Commission for Ukraine, creating the judicial mechanism through which reparations claims will be adjudicated.
  3. Dec 2025The European Council agreed to a €90 billion ERA loan for Ukraine, explicitly reserving the right to use the frozen assets to repay the loan if Russia does not pay reparations, a direct invocation of the countermeasures framework.
03The core legal argument

Foundational key points

  1. 01

    Russia's reparations obligation is uncontested and
    already vastly exceeds the frozen amount.

    Russia's aggression constitutes an unlawful war in violation of the UN Charter, affirmed by three UNGA resolutions and the ICJ. Under ARSIWA Article 31, Russia is obligated to make full reparation for all resulting injury. Current damage estimates exceed $587 billion, far surpassing the approximately $300 billion in frozen assets. There is accordingly no risk that any transfer would exceed Russia's liability.

    UNGA Res. ES-11/5 (Nov. 2022) · ARSIWA Art. 31
  2. 02

    The freezing of assets was itself a lawful countermeasure.

    When Western governments immobilised Russian central bank assets in February 2022, this constituted a lawful countermeasure under international law, whether or not it was labelled as such. Russia's wrongful conduct has not ceased; the countermeasure therefore remains fully justified. This is the foundation on which the transfer argument rests.

  3. 03

    There is no material legal difference between freezing and transferring.

    Both measures deprive Russia of access to the same assets for the same duration and the same lawful purpose. A transfer does not create new legal exposure; it implements the existing countermeasure by applying the assets to the reparations obligation they are already being held against. “In terms of the lawfulness of a countermeasure, there is no material difference between a measure freezing another State's assets, and one which transfers them to the victim of the wrongful conduct as reparations.”

    IISS Legal Memo, May 2024 (Akande, Sands, Koh, Schrijver et al.), para. 59
  4. 04

    The ARSIWA requirements are satisfied.

    A lawful transfer must meet four conditions: (1) intended to induce compliance; (2) proportionate to the injury; (3) permitting the resumption of normal legal relations; (4) not infringing on inviolable obligations such as human-rights protections. All four are met. Russia's liability far exceeds the frozen amount; transferred amounts would be credited against that liability; and the countermeasure would terminate upon Russia's compliance.

04Key objections and responses

The standard objections do not withstand scrutiny.

Read the full FAQ
Would this violate Russia's sovereign immunity?
Sovereign immunity prevents national courts from sitting in judgment of another state's governmental acts. A transfer carried out by executive or legislative action, not by judicial enforcement, is not subject to immunity doctrine. Sovereign equality does not protect assets when the asset-owning state has itself breached fundamental obligations of international law.
Does a transfer satisfy the reversibility requirement?
This objection misunderstands what reversibility applies to. The countermeasure is the suspension of obligations normally owed to Russia, not the transfer itself. That suspension ends when Russia complies. Russia may require that transfers not exceed its reparations liability and that amounts transferred be credited against that debt, but it cannot claw back funds already lawfully disbursed to compensate Ukraine. Since Russia's liability already exceeds the frozen amount, no over-collection is possible.
Does Russia need to consent to pay reparations?
No. Requiring the consent of the offending state would defeat the purpose of countermeasures entirely, and privilege an aggressor's property rights over the rights of its victims. The Iraq/Kuwait precedent confirms that frozen state assets can be transferred without the aggressor's consent.
Could Russia successfully sue in court?
Russia does not accept ICJ jurisdiction and has withdrawn from the ECHR. Investment-treaty arbitration would fail because central-bank reserves are not covered “investments” and the CBR is a state organ, not an investor. Any Russian domestic judgment would be unenforceable in Western jurisdictions. Even on the merits, Russia cannot successfully claim damages when it owes Ukraine far more than the frozen amount.
05Historical precedents

Three working examples of asset transfer

  1. 1981

    Iran hostage crisis

    The U.S. transferred Iranian state assets via the Federal Reserve into escrow, then distributed them under a diplomatic agreement establishing the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal.

  2. 1992

    Iraq / Kuwait

    Following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the U.S. directed banks to transfer frozen Iraqi state funds to escrow. The UN Compensation Commission distributed compensation to victims, without Iraq's consent.

  3. 2022

    Afghanistan

    Following the Taliban takeover, the U.S. blocked approximately $7 billion in Afghan central-bank assets held at the Federal Reserve. Half were transferred to a newly created Afghan Fund in Switzerland, governed by U.S., Swiss, and Afghan trustees, tasked with preserving and disbursing the assets for the benefit of the Afghan people pending recognition of a legitimate government.

These precedents are not identical to the circumstances at hand. But this objection overlooks both the well-established legal doctrines designed to address precisely such situations, and the unprecedented nature of the situation itself: an outright war of aggression, and hundreds of billions in frozen aggressor assets sitting idle while Ukrainian and Western taxpayers absorb the costs. Under these conditions, precedent will be set: by action or by inaction.

06Expert and institutional consensus

The case is well‑supported.

Legal memoMay 2024

IISS Legal Memorandum - “On Proposed Countermeasures Against Russia”

Eleven leading international lawyers from eight countries concluded that a transfer of frozen Russian state assets to an international compensation mechanism would be  lawful, proportionate, reversible, and justified under international law.

  • Dapo Akande, Oxford
  • Philippe Sands, UCL
  • Harold Koh, Yale
  • Nico Schrijver, Leiden
  • Hélène Ruiz Fabri, Paris I
  • Christian Tams, Glasgow
  • Philip Zelikow, Stanford
  • Olivier Corten, ULB
  • Pierre Klein, ULB
  • Shotaro Hamamoto, Kyoto
  • Paul Reichler, practitioner
EP studyFeb 2024

Philippa Webb - European Parliament Research Service Study

Commissioned by the European Parliament, this study by Professor Philippa Webb (King's College London) concluded that confiscation of Russian state assets is  legally available under the doctrine of countermeasures and is consistent with the conditions of temporality and reversibility. It proposed a framework for reconciling state immunity rules with the law of countermeasures to enable a lawful transfer through an EU instrument connected to the international reparations mechanism.

ResolutionApr 2024 · 134–0

PACE Resolution 2539 - Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe

Adopted unanimously by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, this resolution called on member states holding frozen Russian assets to transfer them to an international compensation mechanism. It affirmed that states possess authority under international law to enact countermeasures in response to Russia's serious breach, and that the legitimacy of such countermeasures  “remains unassailable within the framework of sovereign immunity.”

This page provides an overview of the legal arguments for informational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. For primary sources, case law, and in-depth legal analysis, see the Resource Library.

Resource Library - Legal AnalysisMemos, opinions, articles, and official documents.