The world should put pressure on Russia, not on Ukraine

For more than a month, world leaders and the media have been discussing a peace plan to end Russia’s war against Ukraine. Dozens of meetings and negotiations, hundreds of statements, and they all call for peace. These appeals are often addressed to Ukraine: they say, here is the plan, if you really want peace, agree. At the same time, Russia’s massive attacks on Ukraine with drones and missiles do not stop.

But any agreement concluded under pressure raises doubts about its legality and reliability. Any agreement that puts pressure on Ukraine and requires it to give up its territories under duress is not legal and cannot have legal force under international law. If it also aims to amnesty the crimes of Russia, then the conflict may stop temporarily, but there will be no justice. Not to mention peace.

Reward of the aggressor The UN Charter prohibits states from using force and violating the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of another country. This prohibition is imperative (a norm known as “jus cogens” – part of the system of rules that reflect and protect the fundamental values ​​of the international community). This means that no exceptional circumstances can justify deviating from it under any circumstances.

Advertising:

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and the annexation of the Crimean peninsula were in themselves crimes against peace. Even then, the international community not only could, but was obliged to take measures to protect the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Since Russia seriously violated one of the most fundamental norms of the modern world order, the states were obliged not to recognize the legality of Russia’s actions, not to facilitate them, and also to collectively oppose them. This was not simply a matter of political choice: it is a mandatory requirement stemming from the principle of the rule of law.

The right is categorical: no state should recognize the annexation of the occupied territories by the aggressor state. That is why, despite all the efforts of the Russian Federation over the past 10 years, aimed at legitimizing its territorial conquest of Ukraine, no law-abiding state has recognized Crimea as Russian territory and has no right to do so.

And yet today in the information space there are theses regarding the recognition of Russia’s sovereignty over the territories of Luhansk and Donetsk regions and Crimea. The different versions of the so-called peace agreement discussed in the media seem to imply that further territorial disputes can only be resolved through diplomatic means. However, this does not correspond to the law.

Illegal occupation of the territory of another state remains a continuous act of aggression, Ukraine will have the right to regain control of its territories at any time, using diplomatic and military methods. This inalienable right cannot be surrendered by force of arms. As long as Russian troops remain on Ukrainian soil without Ukraine’s valid consent, the act of aggression continues, as does Ukraine’s right to defend itself and return its lands. Aggression should not be rewarded today or tomorrow.

Amnesty for crimes is a violation of the international legal order The crime amnesty proposal is another attempt to circumvent the law and is illegal. It is impossible to simply erase from history four years of full-scale bombing of the Ukrainian civilian population, the destruction of towns and villages, hospitals, maternity homes and schools.

Should Ukraine refuse to prosecute for years of torture, rape, murder, kidnapping and deportation of tens of thousands of innocent citizens, including children?

Should the international community tell the Ukrainian prosecutor’s office, the International Criminal Court, the Tribunal for Crimes of Aggression, the International Commission for Review of Ukraine’s Claims to Russia, and other bodies trying to hold Russian leaders and the military accountable for their crimes to back off and look for other ways?

Some may believe that all these actions aimed at ending the conflict are just political bargaining. However, this is not the case. Political negotiations are subject to legal restrictions. International law clearly prohibits amnesty for war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture, enforced disappearances and genocide. There is no choice but to bring the perpetrators to justice; any enforcement order to the contrary shall be null and void.

Peace is not only the absence of conflict. It is also the presence of justice.

Wayne Jordash, Crown Counsel, President of Global Rights Compliance

A column is a type of material that reflects exclusively the point of view of the author. It does not claim objectivity and comprehensive coverage of the topic in question. The point of view of the editors of “Economic Pravda” and “Ukrainian Pravda” may not coincide with the author’s point of view. The editors are not responsible for the reliability and interpretation of the given information and perform exclusively the role of a carrier.