The rules of international law are simple: Any ‘peace deal’ must be based on Ukraine’s sovereignty or risk being worthless

27 February 2025, 14:36

A few days past the third-year mark of Russia’s illegal full-scale invasion of Ukraine, negotiations to stop hostilities are being driven by the United States all while it sides with Russia at the United Nations.

If these attempts to impose so-called peace come to fruition, it will not only determine Ukraine’s fate as a sovereign state but will also shape the future of international law and ensuing global order. This is a battle for the principles underpinning the foundations of international law which allowed the world to experience the greatest extent of peace and stability it has ever known, despite painful failings along the way.

When searching for a sustainable resolution to Russia’s war against Ukraine, a few central considerations need to be made eminently clear.

First, any treaty concluded under threat or use of force is entirely void under international law. This means, at the very least, that all states must ensure enough support is given to Ukraine to guarantee it can bring an end to the invasion on its own terms – lest any ‘peace deal’ be as worthless as the paper on which it is signed.

Second, Russia’s horrifically brutal actions towards Ukraine violate a central precept of international law, the prohibition of aggression. This means that any treaty that validates or legitimises Russia’s annexation of Ukrainian territory will itself emphatically violate international law and be void, while states will be under the obligation not to recognise it, not to assist it, and to collectively fight against it.

Lastly, no matter what form a so-called ‘peace deal’ takes, it must necessarily be bolstered by substantial efforts to sustain accountability for Russia’s illegal actions.

This will require states to support justice efforts for international crimes committed against Ukrainians, secure financial reparations from Russia for the destruction wrought upon Ukraine, and keep up pressure on Russia to end any continued violations including – no matter how far away it might seem – returning all Ukrainian territory occupied since 2014. Anything less will ensure peace in name only, with future hostilities lurking menacingly beneath the surface.

States secure their political goals with power. But power is transient, moving through states over time. The current international legal regime seeks to equalise these shifts.

The prohibition of using violent force to steal and annex territories exists precisely not just as a present protection to weaker states, but as a future protection for stronger ones that will inevitably face similar threats at a later point of their history. Principles must outweigh power in this respect.

If not, we will soon find ourselves in a world where brute force prevails over justice, and tyranny triumphs over the rule of law. A world where, far beyond Ukraine, war will cast its long shadow.

A bereaved and battered Ukraine frankly deserves better from us all, our future generations depend on it.

Jeremy Pizzi is Legal Advisor at Global Rights Compliance and Maksym Vishchyk is a Legal Advisor at Global Rights Compliance.

LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us email views@lbc.co.uk