The world should pressure Russia, not Ukraine

For a month now, world leaders and the media have been discussing a peace plan to end Russia's war against Ukraine, which initially had 28 points but was later reduced to 20. Dozens of meetings and negotiations, hundreds of statements, and all of them calling for peace. These calls are often directed at Ukraine, saying, here is the plan, if you really want peace, agree to it.

But any agreement made at gunpoint must raise concerns about its legality and sustainability. Any agreement that puts pressure on Ukraine and requires it to give up its territories under coercion is not legitimate and cannot have any legal force under international law. If it also seeks to amnesty Russia's crimes, there may be a temporary cessation of conflict, but there is no justice, let alone peace.

Rewarding the Aggressor

The UN Charter prohibits states from using force and infringing on the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of another country. This prohibition is peremptory (a norm known as "jus cogens" – a part of the system of rules which reflect and protect values fundamental for the international community). This means that no exception can justify the derogation from it under any circumstances.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and its 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 Ukraine's territorial integrity. Since Russia seriously infringed on one of the most foundational rules for the modern world order, states became obliged not to recognise the lawfulness of Russia's actions, not to assist them, as well as to collectively oppose them. This was not simply the question of political choice: it is a binding requirement demanded by the rule of law.

The law is unequivocal: any state must not recognise the annexation of occupied territories by the aggressor state. That is why, despite all the Russian Federation's efforts over the past 10 years to legitimise its territorial conquest of Ukraine, no law-abiding state has recognised Crimea as Russian territory and is prohibited from doing so.

And yet today, proposals to recognise Russia's sovereignty over the territories of Luhansk and Donetsk regions and Crimea are flooding the zone. Different versions of the so-called peace agreement being discussed in the media appear to suggest that further disputes over the territories can only be resolved through diplomatic means. However, this does not correspond to the law. Illegal occupation of another state's territory remains a continuous act of force, Ukraine will be entitled to regain control of its own territories at any time, using diplomatic and military methods. This inalienable right cannot be signed away under gunpoint. As long as Russian troops remain present on Ukrainian soil without Ukraine's valid consent, an act of aggression continues, as does Ukraine's right to defend itself and reclaim its own land. Apart from being a disincentive to modern day aggressors like Russia, this is the law. Aggression must not be rewarded today or tomorrow.

Amnesty for crimes – Upending the International Legal Order

The proposal for the parties to amnesty crimes 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 cities and villages, hospitals, maternity wards, and schools. Ukraine is supposed to forgo accountability for years of torture, rape, murder, kidnapping, and the deportation of tens of thousands of innocent citizens, including children? The international community is supposed to tell Ukrainian's Office of the Prosecution, the International Criminal Court, the Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression, the Claims Commission, and other attempts to hold Russian leaders and the military responsible for its crimes, to stand down and look elsewhere?

Some may think that these all acts in furtherance of a cessation of cessation of conflict are merely political bargaining. Yet, they are not. Behind political negotiations stand legal guardrails. International law clearly prohibits amnesty for war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture, enforced disappearances and genocide. There is no other choice but to hold perpetrators accountable; any coercive decision to do otherwise will be invalid. Peace is more than an absence of conflict. It is also the presence of justice.

Wayne Jordash KC, President of Global Rights Compliance