4 Ways Trump’s Ukraine-Russia Peace Plan Violates International Law (in 2 minutes)
By Yusra Suedi (PhD, Assistant Professor of International Law at University of Manchester)
‘Tis the season of ceasefire deals! (See my recent posts on ceasefire deals on Gaza and Thailand-Cambodia.)
Following years of conflict between Russia and Ukraine, including Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, the US and Russia drafted a proposal, which was leaked to the press.
Here are 4 ways that it violates international law:
It undermines Ukraine’s sovereignty
The plan says that “Ukraine’s sovereignty will be confirmed” (point 1).
But it also forces Ukraine to restrict its military size to max. 600,000 (point 6) and write in its constitution that it will never join NATO (point 7).
Sovereignty under international law includes a country’s right to govern its own military and choose its defensive alliances without interference.
This is a clear contradiction.
It normalises illegal control
The plan says that Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk “will be recognised as de facto Russian, including by the United States” (point 21).
In international law, de facto recognition means other countries would treat Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk as being run by Russia in practice, but not as legally belonging to Russia. On paper, they would still be Ukrainian territory.
The problem is that under international law, countries aren’t supposed to recognise territories taken by force. So even informal recognition could look like they’re legitimising Russia’s illegal takeover.
It ignores international criminal law and human rights
The plan says “All parties involved in this conflict will receive full amnesty for their actions during the war and agree not to make any claims or consider any complaints in the future” (point 26).
The idea here is to cancel the International Criminal Court (ICC)’s arrest warrant on Putin. But the US or Russia can’t just wipe away charges for someone convicted of war crimes by an international court.
The idea is to also cancel setting up the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine, and Europe’s Register of Damage for Ukraine allowing victims to make reparations claims. But no single country has the authority to cancel international tribunals or victims’ rights to seek reparations under international law.
It risks being an invalid treaty under international law
This plan is set to become a legally binding treaty (point 27).
But under international law, a treaty can’t be valid if it was made under threats or by using force (Articles 51-52).
Ukraine is currently under heavy attack, and Putin just threatened that if Ukraine turned down the plan, Russian forces will advance further. Trump has also complained that Ukraine has shown “zero gratitude” for US efforts. In short, Ukraine is under a lot of pressure to accept this deal.
Even if Ukraine caves to such pressure, the treaty wouldn’t be valid.
Will it be adopted?
Probably not. Europe and Ukraine have rejected it and Trump says it’s “not the final offer”.
So… back to the drawing board!
Let me know what you think of this plan in the comments below!