Grace Tsegakele1 reflects on African states’ responses to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and argues that their varied voting patterns at the United Nations General Assembly are best understood not as inconsistency or indifference, but as an expression of structured ambivalence, a strategic and historically informed approach to international legal observance.
TWAILR: Reflections ~ 88/2026
For several years, there has been a shift in the international landscape. It is no longer a matter of following dominant powers or powerful international blocs. Instead of indicating a breakdown of legal standards, this period signifies an increasing pluralism in the interpretation and implementation of international law in different global regions. Countries in the Global South, especially in Africa, are engaging with international legal norms in ways that are historically aware, strategically planned, and mindful of changing geopolitical dynamics. This approach represents structured ambivalence, a deliberate legal stance that neither fully rejects nor blindly accepts dominant global narratives. Structured ambivalence embodies both a commitment to norms and a historical skepticism, acknowledging the formal authority of principles like sovereignty and territorial integrity while being aware of their inconsistent enforcement. Indeed, we are at a Kairos, an opportune moment for decision, and developing countries have skillfully used this moment to recalibrate their engagement with international law, particularly in their response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The varied reactions of African nations to Russia’s violation of a basic norm of international law in invading Ukraine has garnered significant attention and, at times, criticism from Western governments and media. Although public attention initially centred around the United Nations (UN) General Assembly vote on March 2, 2022, in which 28 African nations voted to support the resolution, 17 abstained, 8 were absent, and one voted against, African engagement with the war has unfolded across subsequent resolutions and deliberations at the UN. These voting patterns, rather than signaling indifference or confusion, reveal a nuanced realignment, one that challenges prevailing Western beliefs regarding solidarity and moral clarity during global crises. Their stances are not less robust or more cynical than western practices in similar contexts, but they exhibit a unique legal awareness shaped by colonial legacies, selective enforcement, and inconsistencies within the international legal framework.
While the Security Council has also addressed the war in Ukraine, this reflection focuses primarily on the General Assembly. The framework of the Security Council, especially the permanent members’ veto power, frequently restricts the ability of non-permanent and Global South governments to express themselves and engage in deliberation. The General Assembly, on the other hand, offers a more representative platform where African nations can openly express their legal arguments without being constrained by veto power. Therefore, analyzing General Assembly votes provides a better understanding of how African states position themselves normatively and engage with international law.
Limits of Western Expectations and Universal Observance
In its condemnation of Russia, the West expected African countries to follow suit. This response is shaped by an ostensible belief that international law is universally interpreted and observed. This perspective lacked consideration that African states operate within “double consciousness”. Double consciousness, a concept theorized by W.E.B Du Bois, is the feeling of living with two identities at once, constantly aware of how you see yourself and how the dominant world sees you. This condition of double consciousness helps to explain structured ambivalence. African states simultaneously recognize the binding force of international legal norms while remaining aware of the ways in which these norms have been selectively interpreted and enforced. In the realm of international law, this appears as a conflict between the legal obligation to principles like sovereignty, territorial integrity and the prohibition of force, and the actual experience of these principles being applied inconsistently.
The current UN-centered world order and many principles of international law were developed following the atrocities of the Second World War. This post-war period allowed for the establishment of a moral authority based on economic and political liberalism, and these concepts were reinforced by organisations such as the UN. However, there has been a decline in this moral authority because far too many state actions by the strongest states vis-à-vis other countries (especially in the Global South) have far too often contradicted the core ideals of international law. Whether it be the Iraq war, which destabilized the Middle East, or Afghanistan’s reversion to Taliban rule after 20 years of US occupation, Western powers have at times acted outside or at the margins of the legal framework they claim to defend. At the same time, devastating conflicts in the Global South, including Yemen, Ethiopia’s Tigray region, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, have not consistently generated comparable levels of diplomatic mobilisation or moral urgency within the international system. Such disparities have denuded the legitimacy of international law in the minds of many African states and their peoples. Even though the West expects African states to take steps that align with the rules-based order they established, a lot of African states and peoples have developed a skepticism for this allegedly rules-based global order. Though not himself beyond reproach on several scores, President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, for example, slammed the European Union and the United States for displaying what he described as double standards in the condemnation of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine compared to other invasions such as Cuba and Libya. Eritrea, the only country to vote against the resolution, explained its position by criticizing the UN Security Council and the mandatory sanctions it imposes. This is a clear antipathetic stance and not one of indifference. Such discontent has been building for decades.
Furthermore, in the immediate aftermath of the invasion in 2022, many African leaders did not share the Western assessment of the Ukraine war as a momentous event that would define the future of the international order. Rather, they regarded it as simply another armed conflict among the numerous conflicts occurring around the world, including on the African continent. Yet, as the war persisted and its global economic as well as geopolitical consequences worsened – particularly through disruptions to food supply chains, energy markets, and multilateral diplomacy – its systemic implications became increasingly difficult to ignore. This evolution in perception, reinforced a more cautious and historically informed engagement with the conflict rather than a wholesale adoption of Western framing. From this perspective, the assumption that African nations should conform to Western stances appears less as a neutral appeal to international law and more as an extension of selective moral and legal universalism. Moreover, African states and citizens have expressed skepticism towards the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) continued expansion eastward toward the Russian border. While NATO’s original intent was to safeguard the freedom and security of its members, some countries remain skeptical of certain NATO decisions and practices. South Africa, for example, which is known for being neutral and a champion for peace, publicly blamed the organisation for provoking the Ukraine War. This idea is not new, and the west should have taken it into consideration. During the 1990’s debate over whether Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic should become alliance members, many military and foreign-policy experts argued that NATO expansion would inevitably lead to conflict with Russia. This reflects Russia’s current perception of NATO’s expansion as a security threat.
Thus, perceived inconsistencies in the application and the interpretation of international legal principles have diminished the normative authority of the international legal system in the eyes of numerous African decisionmakers. Consequently, African nations are not rejecting international law, but they are adopting a more pragmatic stance towards compliance as well as legal universalism.
African Responses and Differing Models of Legal Observance
Some may view African responses to breaches of international law as passive, confusing or non-committal, but that is not the case. Each response is strategic. They are forms of legal positioning and carefully thought-out engagements with international law. Since the adoption of Resolution ES-11/1 condemning Russia’s aggression in March of 2022, the UN’s General Assembly has voted on major resolutions addressing the war, including resolutions on humanitarian consequences, Russia’s suspension from the Human Rights Council, the illegality of annexation referenda and reparations, for example. African voting behavior across these resolutions reflects differentiation, recalibration, and continuity rather than confusion.
In the initial vote (ES-11/1), African states were divided across support, abstention, absence, and opposition. Similar divergence appeared in the humanitarian resolution of 24 March 2022 (ES-11/2) and in the vote suspending Russia from the Human Rights Council (ES-11/3), where abstentions remained significant. Many countries abstained from the vote to condemn Russia for invading Ukraine mainly due to security considerations and economic interests. Regarding regime security, Russia has been Africa’s largest arms and mercenaries supplier. Between 2018 and 2022, it provided 40% of the weapon sales to Africa. Thus, a few African leaders believe that having Russia as a close ally helps keep them safe politically from domestic opposition and international pressure. In addition, Russia has established ties to governing elites and key decision makers in several African countries by providing incumbent leaders with diplomatic cover in the UN Security Council. For example, in August 2023, Russia vetoed a UN Security Council resolution that would have prolonged the presence of an independent monitoring mission in Mali. As a result, numerous countries may have chosen to abstain from the Ukraine vote at the UN to enhance their strategic position and safeguard their national security. They are simply prioritizing regime survival, sovereignty and non-interference which are also long-standing principles of international law.
Economic dependence also shapes legal observance. Certain states (Sudan, for example) rely heavily on imports of Russian agricultural products. Although food insecurity has risen due to the conflict, these states also blame Western sanctions for exacerbating the situation and seek to avoid provoking Russia to elevate food prices. Like countries who abstained due to regime security considerations, countries concerned with economic matters are careful not to take sides. However, the voting pattern shifted most clearly with resolution ES-11/4 (September 2022), which declared Russia’s annexation referenda in four Ukrainian regions unlawful. This resolution received the strongest African backing of any Ukraine-related vote. Among the few countries that supported the resolution, their vote did not necessarily reflect undeniable backing of any one side. Their support was grounded more in doctrinal commitment to core principles of international law. As previously mentioned, self-determination, sovereignty, and territorial integrity are norms that resonate strongly with African states because of their shared colonial experience. By voting in favour of Ukraine, they sought to emphasize the importance of member states respecting others’ sovereignty as many African governments feared that weakening the territorial integrity norm could lead to new conflicts over borders on the continent. Notably, the Ghanaian and Liberian representatives to the UN condemned Russian aggression when voting on a different resolution, affirming Ukraine’s rights to international support in retaining its sovereignty and political autonomy.
Subsequent resolutions, including ES-11/5 on reparations (November 2022) and ES-11/6 on a principled and lasting peace (February 2023), again revealed a different outcome. Though many African states supported reaffirmations of sovereignty and calls for peace, abstentions persisted, particularly where resolutions were perceived as embedded within intensified geopolitical confrontation or expanding accountability frameworks. For several states, many of which are members of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), this presented a doctrinal tension. The NAM, founded in 1961, is grounded in principles of sovereign equality, non-intervention, territorial integrity, and opposition to military alliances and bloc politics. These principles were articulated in the Belgrade Declaration (1961) and reaffirmed in subsequent summits, including the Havana Declaration (1979). Historically, NAM countries tended to stay neutral during the Cold War to focus on working together in support of self-determination and against colonialism and imperialism. A few of these countries are Angola, South Africa, Mozambique, and Ghana. Hence, the influence of the NAM further explains abstention as a principled legal position. As a country adhering to the principles of the NAM, it would make little sense to side with Russia, since the invasion contradicts core ideals of this movement. Even so, siding with the West would contradict the principle of neutrality. Therefore, abstaining is the best route as it operates as a form of legal consistency. For example, South Africa abstained to push mediation and dialogue as they did not agree with the contents of the resolution. Zimbabwe also explained its reasoning for abstaining by underlining the complexity of the situation and the harmful impacts of sanctions. This pattern continued in 2025, when the Assembly adopted the resolution entitled “Advancing a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine.” This resolution called for de-escalation, an early cessation of hostilities and a peaceful resolution of the war was adopted but African countries were again divided across these categories. Several voted in favor, others abstained, and a small number opposed the resolution. South Africa, for example, abstained as it has many times in the past. This distribution reveals continuity rather than rupture. While support for reaffirming Ukraine’s sovereignty remained significant, abstentions persisted, indicating that African engagement with the conflict continues to resist binary alignment.
The persistence of divided voting patterns across 2022, 2023, and 2025 underscores that African states are navigating the conflict through structured ambivalence, affirming core principles while resisting incorporation into bloc politics. Legal observance does not have to be binary, as African states have shown through abstentions, support votes, and changing stances over time.
Rethinking Compliance: What Does this Mean?
The varied responses of African nations to the Ukraine conflict demonstrates a significant moment in the continent’s geopolitical evolution. These responses demonstrate an increasing tendency among African states to exhibit strategic autonomy, carefully weighing historical relationships, domestic priorities as well as global interests. Far from being reactive, these approaches show a deliberate recalibrating of alliances, one that signals that Africa is becoming more confident in its participation in global diplomacy on its own terms. At the same time, these choices also signal a broader shift in global power dynamics. African states are asserting influence in ways that challenge certain Western assumptions by underscoring the limitations of a western-centric approach to international law and by highlighting the legitimacy of diverse methods of observance.
As for Western diplomacy, this shift carries important implications. Western countries can no longer assume that African countries will automatically agree with them. Thus, the West should welcome these different opinions and try to truly understand the responses of African nations, rather than dismiss them. Diplomacy now needs to understand that Africa has its own goals and reasons based on principled interpretations of international law.
Conclusion
African responses to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine do not represent a rejection of international law, but rather a distinct theory of how international law should be observed in a world marked by unequal power and uneven enforcement. These approaches, though frequently misunderstood, demonstrate structured legal reasoning. Indeed, they are structured ambivalence. Structured ambivalence is not about simply rejecting or accepting prevailing global narratives, but engaging in a selective, strategic manner. It should not be mistaken with opportunism or moral relativism. Instead, it is a form of legal positioning shaped by historical memory, geopolitical pragmatism, and continued normative commitment.
Across successive General Assembly resolutions between 2022 and 2025, African states have demonstrated that ambivalence, when structured, is not a weakness but agency. Their actions reflect an insistence on exercising autonomy within constraint, emphasizing that legal observance cannot be detached from historical experience or geopolitical context.
- Grace Tsegakele graduated magna cum laude with an Honours Bachelor’s degree in International Development and Globalization from the University of Ottawa. She is currently in her second year of the Programme de droit canadien at the University of Ottawa, pursuing both a Juris Doctor in common law and a Licentiate in Civil Law. Her academic interests include international trade, international law, and the relationship between law, power, and the Global South in the international legal order.