Like everyone else, we are shocked and appalled by the war in Ukraine, and concerned about the course the United States should take. We are all still reeling from the shock that the unimaginable is now reality.

As lawyers, we add our voice to those who seek to hold Russia accountable not just in the court of public opinion but as a matter of law. With the bombing of children's hospitals and other atrocities against civilians, Russia has brought itself within Paragraph 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome resolution A/60/L.1, acknowledging the responsibility of the international community through the United Nations "to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means" per the U.N. Charter "to help to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity." This document sets out the norm of the "Responsibility to Protect (R2P). This norm provides a basis for action of the Security Council. While permanent members of the Security Council still include Russia (which has its veto power), the American Bar Association this year has gone on record endorsing self-restraint by permanent members in exercising that veto power where credible, non-pretextual claims are made of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. While no one is naïve enough to expect Russia to restrain itself when its own actions are involved, the ABA resolution, together with R2P, provides a basis for an international legal position with regard to Russian acts. At some point, current Russian leadership will change, and new Russian leadership will need to address its economic, political and legal isolation in the world community. The rule of law is not irrelevant to that.