The final weeks have seen a gradual enhance of strain on the Ukrainian management to succumb to Russia’s imperialist calls for. Particularly, the USA of America below the Trump Administration have repeated their requires a “Peace Deal” between the 2 states at battle. The Administration suspended navy and intelligence assist to Ukraine after asserting that President Zelensky was “not prepared for peace”. In response to those developments and the general public dispute within the Oval Workplace on February twenty eighth, 2025, the Ukrainian President vowed to have interaction with the Trump Administration’s plans for peace. Army and intelligence assist has since been renewed. Nevertheless, the Trump Administration stays insistent that Ukraine and Russia ought to terminate their hostilities and has indicated that it’s going to put strain on each states to achieve this purpose. Due to this fact, a “peace deal“ between Ukraine and Russia is changing into extra doubtless.
Heading into negotiations, the US Secretary of State lately held {that a} switch of territory from Ukraine to Russia will likely be a essential component of such deal. Furthermore, it’s troublesome to think about that Russia would comply with any types of accountability for illegal aggression, battle crimes, and different violations of the principles of armed battle dedicated all through the battle. The envisioned “peace deal” is subsequently set to undermine core rules of worldwide legislation, notably the prohibition of aggression, territorial integrity, self-determination of peoples, and basic rules of worldwide humanitarian legislation and human rights legislation.
The United Nations Safety Council (UNSC) may maintain a central function in affirming such flawed “peace deal” and securing its lawfulness. In its Decision 2774 of 24 February 2025, the UNSC recalled its duty and responsibility “to peacefully settle disputes”, as certainly demanded by Artwork. 24 along with Artwork. 1, however cited Constitution langue, with a major omission: It didn’t say that the Council should act “in conformity with the rules of justice and worldwide legislation“ as Artwork. 1(1) of the Constitution prescribes. If the Safety Council continued alongside this path, it may search to “remedy” a void peace deal that in any other case would arguably be null and void (I.). Nevertheless, on this endeavor, the UNSC’s powers aren’t limitless, however are topic to the authorized limits of the Constitution (II.). Particularly, the UNSC is obliged to not subvert the Functions and Ideas of Artwork. 1 and a couple of of the UN Constitution. We submit that this state of the legislation bars the UNSC from endorsing a switch of territory to Russia below the present circumstances (III.). When striving to work in the direction of each peace and justice, trade-offs will typically be essential. But, when balancing out the tensions arising right here, the UNSC is sufficiently outfitted with instruments to finish hostilities with out notably subverting the prohibition of the usage of power (IV.).
I. “Curing” the defects of a Peace Treaty
If Russia and Ukraine had been to conclude a treaty involving the switch of Ukrainian territory to Russia, it might doubtless be void below Artwork. 52 of the Vienna Conference on the Regulation of Treaties (VCLT). Artwork. 52 VCLT stipulates:
“A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the risk or use of power in violation of the rules of worldwide legislation embodied within the Constitution of the United Nations.”
With Artwork. 52 VCLT, the contracting events of the Vienna Conference (together with Ukraine, Russia, and the USA) needed to determine a authorized barrier in opposition to the harvesting of the fruits of an illegal aggression. This rule extends the Constitution’s prohibition on the usage of power in worldwide relations, enshrined in its Artwork. 2(4), to the realm of peace treaties. Artwork. 52 VCLT nullifies a consent that has been “procured by” by power. Because of this a causal hyperlink should exist between the risk or use of power by one state and the consent to a peace treaty by one other state. Right here, the diploma of power employed by a state have to be taken into consideration (Dörr/Schmalenbach, VCLT Commentary, Artwork. 52 para. 25). If the usage of power is so overwhelming that the aggressed state is unable to decide on another possibility however agreeing to a treaty that significantly impairs its rights and authorized standing, then the hyperlink of causality is given.
Primarily based on the current dynamics within the negotiations, a “peace treaty” can be “procured by” the continued Russian aggression; the aggression can be causal for Ukraine’s consent. Though the US authorities lately reinstalled its navy and intelligence help, it’s doubtless {that a} renewed withdrawal of assist will likely be leveraged by the US authorities to advertise a “deal” between Russia and Ukraine. If US navy and intelligence help is withdrawn, Ukraine will likely be unable to uphold the present entrance in opposition to the aggression. Ukraine would thus solely comply with this treaty as a result of it has no different possibility for averting additional hurt in type of lack of lives, harm to infrastructure and ecologic harm. A “peace deal” transferring territory to Russia below such circumstances would subsequently reward Russia for initiating and sustaining the aggression till Ukrainian assets and its worldwide help have been near depleted, leaving Ukraine with no different affordable selection than to comply with a “peace deal”. That is exactly the scenario which Artwork. 52 VCLT seeks to ban. Due to this fact, we imagine that such a “peace treaty” can be void.
Nevertheless, the UNSC can – as a matter of precept – translate treaty provisions in a binding resolution and thus unilaterally impose them on member states. Underneath Artwork. 25 UN Constitution, member states should settle for and perform the choices taken by the UNSC. The UNSC – particularly when appearing below Chapter VII of the Constitution ─ may endorse a “peace deal” agreed upon between Russia and Ukraine as an annex to a binding resolution and thereby bestow it with binding impact upon the events consistent with Artwork. 25 UN Constitution. Such a binding resolution of the Safety Council additionally advantages from the precedence accorded to Constitution obligations below Artwork. 103. This provision foresees that the member states’ obligations below the Constitution (which incorporates their obligation to hold out binding Safety Council choices (Artwork. 25)), prevail over their conflicting treaty (and arguably additionally conflicting customary law-based) obligations.
Pointing to Artwork. 103, it has been claimed that “choices of the Safety Council below Chapter VII of the Constitution, setting forth peace circumstances as regards an aggressor state, are unfettered by Article 52” (Forlati 327). The prevalence of UNSC motion over the principles of the VCLT can also be mirrored in Artwork. 75 VCLT which affirms the validity of a treaty pressured upon an aggressor state by an enforcement measure of the UNSC. The supply doesn’t apply on to the case at hand, contemplating that Ukraine (on which the treaty is imposed) is presently being coerced and isn’t the aggressor within the battle. Nevertheless, it exhibits that the drafters of the VCLT didn’t need to limit the powers of the UNSC in resolving threats to worldwide peace. This arguably consists of the conclusion or endorsement of peace treaties by the UNSC.
II. The UNSC’s obligation to behave in accordance with the Functions and Ideas of the Constitution
The UNSC’s competence in resolving conflicts is nonetheless restricted by different elements than Artwork. 52 and 75 of the VCLT. The UNSC is entrusted with the “main duty for the upkeep of worldwide peace and safety” (Artwork. 24 UN Constitution). The Council wants a broad leeway for discharging its activity below this broad mandate. Nonetheless, being an organ of a world organisation ─ which is as a matter of precept sure by basic worldwide legislation (ICJ, WHO/Egypt (Advisory Opinion) [1980] ICJ Rep 72, para 37) ─ UNSC measures aren’t purely political conduct that will happen in a law-free zone (ICJ, Circumstances of Membership (Advisory Opinion) [1948] ICJ Rep 57, 64). Fairly, the ICJ held that “neither they [the UN purposes] nor the powers conferred to effectuate them are limitless” (ICJ, Sure Bills (Advisory Opinion) [1962] ICJ Rep 168). Because the Worldwide Prison Tribunal for the previous Yugoslavia (ICTY) held, “neither the textual content nor the spirit of the Constitution conceives of the Safety Council as legibus solutus (unbound by legislation).” (ICTY, Prosecutor v Dusko Tadic, Determination on the Defence Movement for Interlocutory Enchantment on Jurisdiction (Appeals Chamber of two October 1995) ICTY-94-1-AR72 para 28). Not all contours of the authorized limits of Safety Council motion are solely clear. We are going to think about the widely accepted authorized parameters related to the present case.
First, the UNSC could not violate jus cogens norms by way of its actions (Conclusion 16 of the ILC’s Draft conclusions on identification and authorized penalties of peremptory norms of basic worldwide legislation (jus cogens); ECtHR (GC) Al Dulimi v Switzerland (Judgment) [2016], para. 136; Sep. Op. E. Lauterpacht, ICJ, Bosnian Genocide, Provisional Measures (1993), para 100; ECJ, Kadi v Council and Fee [2005], paras 226 and 230). Felix Herbert has argued {that a} peace treaty that includes a switch of territory will not be void below Artwork. 53 VCLT so long as there isn’t a “battle” with a peremptory norm, and that such battle is absent so long as the treaty doesn’t purport to formally legalise an annexation. This slim studying of Artwork. 53 stands in stress with the states’ and the UNSC’s obligation to not recognise a severe breach of a peremptory norm (Artwork. 41(2) ARSIWA; Artwork. 42(2) ARIO). Because the ICJ lately defined, these obligations are broad and demand abstention from factual entrenchments of the prior violation (ICJ, Occupied Palestinian Territories (Advisory Opinion) [2024] ICJ Rep, e 2024, paras 278, 280 ff.). It argued that the responsibility of non-recognition incumbent on states and the UN vis-à-vis the Occupied Palestinian Territories prolonged to “any modifications within the bodily character or demographic composition” and “institutional construction or standing of the territory“ (ibid.). Moreover, states are required to “abstain from treaty relations”, “coming into into financial or commerce dealings”, “set up[ing] diplomatic mission” which validate or entrench its extended occupation of the Palestinian Territory” on account of Israel’s breach of self-determination, which has jus cogens character on this context (Ibid. paras. 233, 243, 278 ff.). Contemplating that an aggression in violation of Artwork. 2(4) likewise qualifies as a violation of a peremptory norm, it’s uncertain whether or not the UNSC may validate a treaty that cements the outcomes of such aggression.
Additional authorized limits on UNSC motion stream from the rules and functions of the UN Constitution itself. Artwork. 24(2) UN Constitution explicitly says that the “Safety Council shall act in accordance with the Functions and Ideas of the United Nations”. “[A]ct[ing] in accordance” with Artwork. 1 (“Functions”) and Artwork. 2 (“Ideas”) , as required by Artwork. 24(2), signifies that the Council could not, by way of its personal actions, impede, undermine, or subvert these functions and rules.
Importantly, authorized limits additionally govern UNSC motion below Chapter VII. Chapter VII measures, together with the authorisation of navy power, won’t be measured in opposition to the inter-state prohibition of the usage of power as codified in Artwork. 2(4) of the Constitution that expressly solely addresses states. Furthermore, the prohibition of intervention within the domaine réservé of states doesn’t apply to Chapter VII measures, as affirmed by Artwork. 2(7). Chapter VII can also be apt to eclipse the customary prohibition to make use of navy power that’s typically seen as typically binding the Council itself (Dörr, Use of Pressure, MPEPIL, para. 27).
Nevertheless, the specific mandate in Chapter VII doesn’t imply that the UN member states typically “contracted out” of basic worldwide legislation by conferring enforcement powers to the Council. The proponents of the “opting out-thesis” mistakenly depend on the wording of Article 1(1) of the UN Constitution. This provision certainly (implicitly) distinguishes between Chapter VII (“collective measures”) and Chapter VI motion (“dispute settlement”). “Worldwide legislation” is talked about just for the latter sort of exercise. This was a deliberate selection by the drafters. The thought was to spare the Council the need to inquire into the lawfulness of the concerned member states’ conduct earlier than intervening as a world “policeman” (UNCIO VI, 29 (US)). But, the drafters by no means sought to liberate the Council from authorized limits (Peters, Artwork. 25 UN Constitution, para. 156; UNCIO VI: p. 34 (fee I, session of 14 June 1945); p. 318 (committee 1, session of 1 June 1946); p. 23 and 24: Egypt); p. 702 (sub- committee I/1/A, 1 June 1945)). At most, an specific and intentional deviation from ius dispositivum can be conceivable below Chapter VII, and likewise right here solely to the extent essential to fulfil the UNSC’s mandate (Peters. Artwork. 25 UN Constitution, para.163; ICTY, Tadic deserves [1999] paras 287 and 296). Furthermore, the present scenario in Ukraine is an illustration of the everyday factual overlap between the 2 varieties of exercise talked about in Artwork. 1(1) of the Constitution (dispute settlement below Chapter VI and “collective measures” below Chapter VII). This overlap underlines the relevance of worldwide legislation additionally for Chapter VII exercise.
Thus, the Constitution, on the one hand, explicitly permits the UNSC to authorise navy motion and to intervene in a member state’s affairs within the occasion of a risk to the peace, breach of the peace, or aggression (below Chapter VII) and to selectively disregard the prohibitions of use of power and intervention in that call. Then again, this doesn’t translate to a wholesale liberation of the Council from observing the Artwork. 1 functions and Artwork. 2 rules. First, and foremost, such wholesale liberation would essentially contradict Artwork. 24(2)’s wording which insists on adherence to the Constitution’s rules even with a view to Chapter VII powers which are talked about within the second sentence of Artwork. 24(2). Second, the lex specialis of Chapter VII which varieties a selected exception to the prohibitions of the usage of power and intervention is to begin with designed for authorising collective motion. The Constitution mandate to authorise navy power doesn’t comprise an allowance to endorse prior power utilized by an aggressor state. Third, the limitation of authorized restraints on the UNSC as a “policeman” envisions a scenario of urgency which requires instant motion. An endorsement of a coerced “peace deal” wouldn’t be a measure for a single case, however would quantity to UNSC laws. Though the Council will not be barred from legislating, further formal and materials limits are recognised for such a exercise (Peters, Artwork. 24 UN Constitution, paras. 70-84). The benchmark should particularly be excessive when the UNSC known as upon to guage prior conduct and pave the best way for a long-term answer. Whereas the Constitution permits the UNSC to selectively depart from the prohibition of the usage of power by way of Chapter VII measures, it doesn’t grant the ability to essentially subvert the prohibition of the usage of power. The Council is the guardian of the rules in Artwork. 2 of the Constitution. Whereas it may be essential to momentarily disregard these rules to attain the opposite functions and rules of the Constitution, a long-term and impactful disregard of those rules is incompatible with this function.
Due to this fact, the UNSC is prohibited from adopting measures that grossly subvert a Constitution goal or a precept by producing results that essentially oppose their elementary content material or when the Council legitimises and evokes future violations of the Constitution rules. Such motion wouldn’t be “in accordance” with the Constitution’s Functions and Ideas, and subsequently inadmissible when it comes to Artwork. 24(2). Such a measure would arguably transgress the authorized limits of the Council’s very broad discretion and therefore be extremely vires or a détournement de pouvoir. (cf ICJ, Lockerbie (Preliminary Objections) (Dissenting Opinion) [1998] ICJ Rep 110).
III. Implications for UNSC motion within the present context
Endorsing a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine that entails important switch of territory from Ukraine to Russia would blatantly subvert the elementary (and undisputed) core of the prohibition of the usage of power as addressed to Russia and would thus be extremely vires.
Artwork. 2(4) of the UN Constitution was basically launched to outlaw wars of conquest to amass territory of a distinct state by way of forcible means. Russia’s full-scale aggression since February twenty fourth, 2022 violates the prohibition of the usage of power. This additionally holds true for the “annexation” of 4 Ukrainian areas later that 12 months. As now we have detailed above, a Ukrainian concession of territory below the present circumstance can be instantly brought on by the aggression. A UNSC decision which endorses such “peace deal” or – comparably to Decision 2774 – omits any reference to worldwide legislation when being attentive to the switch of territory to Russia would threat to quantity to an implicit legalisation of a scenario in contravention of a core component of the prohibition of the usage of power.
Furthermore, it might legitimise the Russian aggression. By accepting the “new realties” provoked by the aggression and endorsing a “peace deal” on this foundation, the UNSC would settle for the Russian strategy (i.e. by utilizing power) to renegotiating its borders as official. It might reward Russia’s use of power and its perseverant battle effort. This might be a blueprint for different states to amass territory by way of power: provoke an aggression in opposition to a smaller state, commit abhorrent crimes in the midst of the battle to dissuade its inhabitants from additional resisting the aggression, after which wait till the worldwide help for the sufferer of aggression dwindles to the extent that the worldwide group begins to simply accept the “new realities” provoked by the aggression.
Prior UNSC observe on this subject (implicitly) confirms that an endorsement of a “peace treaty” involving the numerous switch of territory would quantity to a basic subversion of the prohibition of the usage of power and subsequently be inconsistent with the Council’s obligation below Artwork 24(2) to “act in accordance” with the Constitution rules. The UNSC has by no means (!) endorsed a switch of territory in reference to a violation of the prohibition of the usage of power. The UNSC has to this point not defined or justified its “detrimental” observe. Due to this fact, an specific acknowledgement by the Council that its restraint on this subject derives from worldwide legislation is missing. Nonetheless, the observe does reveal the final consciousness of the Council on this regard, and likewise attracts a transparent distinction between short-term and long-term options. This distinction is essential and will proceed to information UNSC motion, as we’ll underline subsequent.
IV. Lawful choices for the UNSC
The authorized limits detailed above don’t hinder Council motion to finish hostilities between Russia and Ukraine.
First, the UNSC may endorse a ceasefire settlement that delineates the present line of contact and establishes a ceasefire, however leaves the territorial query untouched. It has already performed so on quite a few events, together with an endorsement of the Lusaka Ceasefire Settlement between Uganda, Angola, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Namibia and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) by way of Decision 1304 of 2000. Within the Armed Actions Case, the ICJ neither questioned the validity of the settlement when it comes to Artwork. 52 VCLT nor did it elevate considerations with regard to its UNSC endorsement. In opposition to this backdrop, Greg Fox has requested whether or not the ICJ would once more be so deferential in the direction of a UNSC endorsement of a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia. Nevertheless, the Lusaka Ceasefire Settlement and the envisioned peace deal between Ukraine and Russia differ in a single necessary facet: Lusaka left the territorial integrity and the boundaries of the DRC untouched (Part 15). Importantly, it didn’t present the Ugandan forces with a authorized title to stay on the territory of the DRC within the aftermath. This level was highlighted by the ICJ in its 2005 judgment (para. 99 ff., 104). A treaty between Ukraine and Russia that includes a switch of territory would subsequently go effectively past the Lusaka Ceasefire Settlement in undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity and subverting the Constitution precept prohibiting the usage of power.
Moreover, the UNSC may do extra than simply endorsing a ceasefire settlement. Within the aftermath of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1964, the UNSC created a peacekeeping mission by way of Decision 186 to safe the road of contact between Cyprus and Turkey. Once more, Decision 186 didn’t jeopardise or restrict the territorial integrity of Cyprus, and the decision explicitly referred to Artwork. 2(4) UN Constitution.
These two examples present that the UNSC possesses a large organize of instruments to allow and safe an finish of hostilities between two states with out subverting the basic rules of the Constitution. Justice and Peace might be aligned with out severely compromising one or the opposite. Significantly, the endorsement of the Lusaka Ceasefire Settlement exhibits that the UNSC can pursue peace by terminating lively hostilities whereas remaining connected to the Constitution rules. Uganda withdrew from the DRC’s territory in June of 2003 and needed to reply for its transgressions of the prohibition of the usage of power earlier than the ICJ. This might most likely have been completely different had the UNSC had explicitly authorised Uganda to take care of a navy presence within the DRC or endorsed an annexation of the DRC’s territory by Uganda.
Due to this fact, the UNSC should chorus from doing precisely this within the context of the Russian aggression. It will possibly endorse a ceasefire and even authorise a peacekeeping mission to safe the ceasefire. Nevertheless, it might not endorse the switch of territory from Ukraine to Russia, as a result of this is able to subvert Constitution rules, notably the prohibition of aggression and the safety of territorial integrity, and subsequently exceed the authorized limits for UNSC motion.
The duty to maintain the UNSC motion throughout the authorized limits prescribed by Artwork. 24(2) of the Constitution principally resides with the members of the Council. As Russia and the USA are the 2 primary advocates of a switch of territory, it’s upon the opposite member states, particularly the non-permanent members, to dam such endeavors within the Council. Furthermore, France, China, and the UK are saddled with the duty to veto a proposed decision.
Ought to the UNSC nonetheless overstep the outer authorized limits of its discretion and endorse an settlement between Ukraine and Russia that entails a switch of territory, the implications will likely be manifold. This might name for a follow-up blogpost, which we sincerely hope won’t be essential.
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/T4SU6FOBXJBDVDEIE2CV2QJMFY.jpg?w=120&resize=120,86&ssl=1)
