Voici un etude realisee par un professeur americain :

« The legal case for russian intervention in Georgia »
http://russiaotherpointsofview.typepad.com/files/fin504_petro-final.pdf

extrait :
Now that some time has passed since the events of early August, it is possible to examine the legal argument for Russia’s
military intervention in Georgia sine ira et studio. While such arguments do not, of course, provide a full explanation for Russia’s
intervention—that would require an examination of Russia’s economic, political and military ambitions in the Caucasus—
they do tell us a great deal about the context within which foreign policy decisions are made. It is therefore striking that so
few western analysts bothered to seriously consider the legal arguments Russia put forward for what it calls its “peace enforcement”
operation, a term introduced by former United Nations (“U.N.”) Secretary Boutros Boutros-Ghali sixteen years ago.
Had greater attention been paid, it would have revealed the unusual degree to which Russia sought the support of international
institutions for what its leadership clearly believed to be a solid legal case for humanitarian intervention. Since an appeal
to legal argument is often considered a hallmark of the Western political tradition (and a weakness of the Russian political tradition),
Russia’s emphasis on the legal justification for intervention should be viewed as a significant step to the adaptation of Russian foreign policy to post-Soviet norms.
Having weathered this crisis, Russia will increasingly construct its foreign policy arguments with an eye toward both following
and shaping international law. To the extent that Western analysts continue to dismiss Russia’s legal arguments, they
will persistently fail to grasp the degree to which being part of the international legal system has become a fundamental ambition of Russian foreign policy.