Question: <https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220909-ukraine-reconstruction-to-cost-349-bn-report>

> 
> Rebuilding Ukraine following the devastation caused by the Russian
> invasion will cost an estimated $349 billion, according to a report
> issued Friday.
> 
> 
> But the figure, which totals 1.5 times the size of the Ukrainian
> economy, is considered a minimum and is expected to grow in the coming
> months as the war continues, according to the joint assessment by the
> government of Ukraine, the European Commission, and the World Bank.
> 
> 
> 

It has been reported that it would cost 349 billion to reconstruct Ukraine as it was before. I heard that the U.S. possess around 300 billion in frozen Russian asset, and I was wondering if the U.S. had the legal means to use that fund "illegally" and use it to finance the reconstruction of Ukraine? Is there a legal precedent for doing something similar?

Answer: 
Apparently a precedent for doing so (i.e. unlocking frozen Russian assets to use in the rebuilding of Ukraine) exists legally somewhere in the Iraqi 1990 invasion of Kuwait, according to Philip Zelikow at the University of Virginia. But I'm curious as to why it must be "the U.S." that facilitates this process. What, are they ("we" actually, as I'm American) bigger than the international community writ large? And isn't the knee-jerk assumption that this is purely the U.S.'s prerogative just a reflection of the sort of rigid mindset that Russia (and, increasingly, the Global South led by China) is lashing out at in the first place? <https://www.lawfareblog.com/legal-approach-transfer-russian-assets-rebuild-ukraine>
**Yes**.

The only potential hurdle to it would be sovereign immunity. But **sovereign immunity can be removed with a legislation**. There are already laws which remove sovereign immunity to civil law suits.

The criteria for sovereign immunity are established in [Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Sovereign_Immunities_Act). But the act can be amended to allow more situations in which law suits can occur. ***For example***, [JASTA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Against_Sponsors_of_Terrorism_Act) amends it to:

> 
> authorize federal courts to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over any foreign state's support for acts of international terrorism against a U.S. national or property regardless of whether such state is designated as a state sponsor of terrorism.
> 
> 
> 

Other amendments can be passed to create exceptions to allow law suits under some other sets of limited circumstances.