The United Nations Is Necessary for Peace

The United Nations Is Necessary for Peace

There is talk of peace in Ukraine. A question is whether there can be a peace treaty. This requires an ethical assessment, and so we turn to John Eppstein who edited The Code of International Ethics, the Malines’ Group or Malines’ Congress last handbook on ethics in the international arena that encapsulated the natural law understanding of what we know as international relations. It also set forth, at least in the Catholic tradition, the idea of international ethics. Eppstein explained “This science of ethics falls into two parts – general morality and special morality…Among these different branches of special morality comes international ethics. This is the moral science which governs the conduct of men and, more especially, of rulers, in their international relations.”1

Eppstein based the analysis on several fundamental considerations. The first is a determination of who is the just belligerent and who is not. The second is who succeeded on the battlefield or proved victorious which necessarily requires an analysis of goals, and effort.

The just belligerent is one who meets all the necessary elements which constitute the “just war theory” and that includes a declaration of war by a legitimate authority; having a just and grave cause proportional to the evils brought about; undertaken only after all means of peaceful resolution have been exhausted without success; have serious chances of success; and be conducted with right intention.2

Considering the above, we can determine Russia to be the unjust belligerent. While Putin may be the appropriate authority for the declaration of war, he has neither a just cause nor a grave cause to justify the horrors he has visited on Ukraine, and the harm he has caused to the community of nations. Destroying Ukraine or stripping it of sovereignty as Putin indicates is his goals, do not serve as just causes. Putin’s invasion, not supported under international law including the UN Charter as Professor Schmitt concluded, is an unjust cause. Putin failed to exhaust all peaceful means, and as Professor Schmitt wrote and the United Nations General Assembly noted, if the Minsk II accords failed, Putin’s choice was to go back to making the accords work. He also had available the International Court of Justice which allows that disputes between countries be heard and resolved. Putin, as leader of Russia, one of the permanent members of the Security Council, had an even graver obligation to make sure war did not break out. The Russian military’s failures and the spirited, innovative defense by Ukraine show that Russia cannot meet its objective especially as news is circulating of the impending collapse of the Russian economy due to the strains of the war. Eppstein put forth the concept that the combatant must take into account the international common good which means considering the toll of suffering brought to others.3 Here, again, Putin must fail because of the heavy suffering he is inflicting on various peoples given the continuing wars he has waged since 1999 in a desire to restore the Russian Empire of sorts. Ukraine is just one phase, and Ukraine just one victim. Finally, Putin must fail when it comes to right intention. He is motivated for the greater glory of Russia at the expense of other countries and the common good of the international community.4 Putin is an unjust belligerent.

Who is the just belligerent? Certainly it is Ukraine for defending against aggression and preserving its sovereignty, but the common good of the international community is at stake and so the just belligerent must be the community of nations. Ukraine and its allies are fighting and working for right order, and peace. We see this in his terms for resolution of the conflict that President Zelensky put forth on November 15, 2022, at the G20 (G19 with the eviction of Russia) Summit. In short form, the terms he proposed are:

“Dear colleagues! The world’s majority, which stands with us!….[The following are the terms] radiation and nuclear safety; food security; energy security; release of all prisoners and deported person; implementation of the UN Charter and restoration of Ukraine’ territorial integrity and the world order; withdrawal of Russian troops and cessation of hostilities; restoration of justice; countering ecocide; preventing escalation; and finally – confirmation at the end of the war.”5

This means the following: 1) Russia’s nuclear threats must be stopped and Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant must be demilitarized and rendered safe; 2) expansion of the export grain initiative from Ukraine in quantity and ports from which the grain departs; 3) the end of Russian attacks on Ukrainian energy generation while limiting the export prices for Russia (“if you take something away, the world has the right to take from you”); 4) release of all prisoners and deportees to include children and adults; 5) implementation of the United Nations Charter and restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and the world order, none of which is “up to negotiations”; 6) withdrawal of Russian troops from the territory of Ukraine and the end of hostilities; 7) “establishment of the Special Tribunal regarding the crime of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and the creation of an international mechanism to compensate for all the damages caused by this war”; 8) repairing the environment which includes demining, restoration of water treatment facilities, cleaning the soil and the air, replenishing the livestock and millions of hectares of forests burned; 9) prevention of escalation and security in the form of the Kyiv Security Compact which includes guarantees for the safety of Ukraine; and 10) confirmation of the end of the war with an agreement signed by the parties and involving the United Nations.6

Zelensky’s terms correspond with the terms set forth by the United Nations General Assembly in ES11/6 entitled “Principles of the Charter of the United Nations Underlying a Comprehensive, Just and Lasting Peace in Ukraine.”7 These terms uphold the international order. Zelensky’s terms are essentially terms that are designed to uphold the international order, and the world fights with him. It is hard to see how one can compromise Zelensky’s position given he is faced with an existential question for Ukraine, and one that is also presented to the international order.

This begs the greater question: is Zelensky the only just belligerent or is there another? I submit that the international community is with Zelensky as the just belligerent and that the full force of its involvement in this war has not been felt. The international community has acted properly in condemning Putin’s unlawful invasion, in arming Ukraine and assisting in its defense, and in sanctioning Russia. Indeed, the sanctioning of Russia, the military assistance and the diplomatic actions taken by the United States and other countries against Russia are proper forms of what is called intervention. These are ways to get Russia to act properly or, in other words, to restore right order in the world and with right order, peace. Justice requires no less from the international community.

This is important given that Putin’s proffered peace terms are diametrically opposed, or irreconcilable to Zelensky’s for a number of reasons.8 Termed a “call for unconditional surrender,” Putin’s plan from early 2022 contains the following points: 1) Ukraine cedes Crimea and the Donbas immediately to Russia; 2) Ukraine accepts Russian control of occupied regions; 3) Ukraine makes Russian the official state language while passing laws that attack or diminish Ukrainian religion, history, and national identity; 4) reduction of the Ukrainian army to 50,000 from about 1,000,000 while limiting the air force; 5) limitations on the armor and missiles the Ukrainians could possess; 6) renunciation of Ukraine’s NATO membership plans plus an agreement not to enter into defense arrangements with Western countries; and, somewhat later, 7) Russian veto over any international response.9

Putin changed his peace plan somewhat by June, 2024 and he said that refusal to accept these terms would result in stricter or harsher terms.10 His updated offer was:: 1) Ukrainian withdrawal from the Donetsk region (termed Donetsk People’s Republic), the Luhansk region (termed Luhansk People’s Republic), Zaporzhye region and Kherson region; 2) Ukraine is made neutral, non-nuclear and non-aligned; 3) Ukraine will be demilitarized and denazified; 4) Russia takes Crimea, Sevastopol, the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions; 5) a “fundamental international agreement” to record these concessions; 6) lifting of all Western sanctions against Russia. This, according to Putin, would end the conflict and not freeze it. 11

The two positions remain irreconcilable, making it even harder to see how a peace could be reached without one side or the other submitting. Submitting to Putin will lead to the end of Ukraine and greater and more serious damage to the international order12 which threatens all the peoples of the world. Putin is asking the community of nations to surrender to him for the benefit of one country, one people. To allow that to happen is a grave injustice and it is simply not warranted given the relatively low level of international involvement in resisting Russia’s unjust war.

This leads us to Eppstein’s second consideration, which is the result of the contest on the battlefield. As Eppstein appears to put it, victory is the achievement of one’s goals while the other side “offers to give satisfaction” or “surrenders unconditionally.” 13 He allows a just belligerent to compromise when it appears that its goals cannot be achieved, but he makes no mention of whether the unjust belligerent has achieved its goals.14 There is a question whether the just belligerent “may continue war until he gains a decisive victory which enables him to impose them upon his adversary, or whether he is bound to accept the pacific gestures of the enemy sooner.”15

Inherent in this consideration is whether the just belligerent has done all that it can do to gain victory. In the case regarding Ukraine, the world community, having made clear who the unjust belligerent is and having made clear the terms for resolution, cannot be said with certainty to have done all it could do to assure victory over the unjust belligerent absent Russia’s voluntary acquiescence to the will of the world as laid out in numerous General Assembly resolutions. There is more effort that the world can provide, and that is due. That effort can best come from the United Nations, and from hopefully all the remaining permanent members of the Security Council leading the effort.

Keeping with the “basic philosophy underlying the Charter” which is “that every effort should be made to maintain peace and security,”16 a truce could be brokered, or a military force fielded. The United Nations could do either one by employing the “Uniting for Peace” mechanism or UNGA 377(V) which authorized UN involvement in marshalling the armed forces of the world to repel the North Korean invasion of the Republic of Korea in 1950. The same mechanism, born of the need to act when a member of the Security Council was intransigent as is likely the case now, was employed during the 1956 Suez crisis as two superpowers were involved in that situation. It authorized the Secretary General to create the United Nations Emergency Force to secure the cessation of hostilities and the withdrawal of British, French and Israeli formed from Egypt. After that, a buffer zone with a buffer force was emplaced. This has been called the “model for traditional peace keeping operations,” and since then there have been a number of peacekeeping operations (at least 55) in different parts of the world. The main function of peace-keeping operations like UNEF serve to separate the parties, prevent armed hostilities, maintain order in a given area, and perform a variety of other tasks17 until a just peace is finalized or an unjust belligerent complies. The only just peace is one by which Russia acquiesces to the will of the international community and complies with international law both as set forth in numerous resolutions from the United Nations General Assembly. This is an existential struggle for the future of the world, and of humanity. Either we go the way of devolution in which the rule of force takes the place of the rule of law leading to the gradual extinguishment of humanity by destroying human solidarity, or we defend an order based on the rule of law, the rule of reason, that sees human solidarity and unity as a good.

The stakes are high, and the result of this conflict will affect the peoples of the world, and the community of nations. For the common good, it is essential that reason, law, and unity prevail, and that aggression be defeated. The road to peace in Ukraine begins with an understanding of what is at stake, how important it is, and who has the moral authority to best bring peace through justice in restoring right order.

1 John Eppstein, Code of International Ethics, (Sands and Company, Glasgow, Scotland, 1953), p. 42.

2 Eppstein, Code of International Ethics, 117-118 (para. 142).

3 Eppstein, Code of International Ethics, 123-124 (para. 156).

4 Eppstein, Code of International Ethics, 124-125 (para. 158-159).

5 President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky, “Ukraine has always been a leader in peacemaking efforts; if Russia wants to end this war, let it prove it with actions – speech by the President of Ukraine at the G20 Summit,” 15 November 2022, wwwpresident.gov.us as accessed December 25, 2024.

6 Ibid.

7 “ES-11/6. Principles of the Charter of the United Nations underlying a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine The General Assembly,

“Recalling the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations,

“Recalling also the obligation of all States under Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations, and to settle their international disputes by peaceful means,

“Reaffirming that no territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal, Recalling its relevant resolutions adopted at its eleventh emergency special session and its resolution 68/262 of 27 March 2014,

“Stressing, one year into the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, that the achievement of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace would constitute a significant contribution to strengthening international peace and security, Recalling the order of the International Court of Justice of 16 March 2022,

“Deploring the dire human rights and humanitarian consequences of the aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine, including the continuous attacks against critical infrastructure across Ukraine with devastating consequences for civilians, and expressing grave concern at the high number of civilian casualties, including women and children, the number of internally displaced persons and refugees in need of humanitarian assistance, and violations and abuses committed against children,

“Noting with deep concern the adverse impact of the war on global food security, energy, nuclear security and safety and the environment,

“1. Underscores the need to reach, as soon as possible, a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine in line with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations;

“2. Welcomes and expresses strong support for the efforts of the Secretary General and Member States to promote a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine, consistent with the Charter, including the principles of sovereign equality and territorial integrity of States;

“3. Calls upon Member States and international organizations to redouble support for diplomatic efforts to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine, consistent with the Charter;

“4. Reaffirms its commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders, extending to its territorial waters;

“5. Reiterates its demand that the Russian Federation immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its military forces from the territory of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders, and calls for a cessation of hostilities;

“6. Demands that the treatment by the parties to the armed conflict of all prisoners of war be in accordance with the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 19492 and Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and calls for the complete exchange of prisoners of war, the release of all unlawfully detained persons and the return of all internees and of civilians forcibly transferred and deported, including children;

“7. Calls for full adherence by the parties to the armed conflict to their obligations under international humanitarian law to take constant care to spare the civilian population and civilian objects, to ensure safe and unhindered humanitarian access to those in need, and to refrain from attacking, destroying, removing or rendering useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population;

“8. Also calls for an immediate cessation of the attacks on the critical infrastructure of Ukraine and any deliberate attacks on civilian objects, including those that are residences, schools and hospitals;

“9. Emphasizes the need to ensure accountability for the most serious crimes under international law committed on the territory of Ukraine through appropriate, fair and independent investigations and prosecutions at the national or international level, and ensure justice for all victims and the prevention of future crimes;

“10. Urges all Member States to cooperate in the spirit of solidarity to address the global impacts of the war on food security, energy, finance, the environment and nuclear security and safety, underscores that arrangements for a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine should take into account these factors, and calls upon Member States to support the Secretary-General in his efforts to address these impacts;

“11. Decides to adjourn the eleventh emergency special session of the General Assembly temporarily and to authorize the President of the General Assembly to resume its meetings upon request from Member States.” Security Council Report at https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-documents/document/a-res-es-11-6.php

8 Yelizaveta Surnacheva and Systema, “Early Peace Plan Shows Russia’s Intent to Neutralize Ukraine,” November 4, 2024, Radio Free Europe accessed at https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-ukraine-peace-deal-putin-draft-treaty/33183664.html; Peter Dickinson, “Putin’s 2022 `Peace Proposal’ was a blueprint for the destruction of Ukraine,” Atlantic Council.

9 Ibid.

10 “Russia makes another real peace proposal to Kiev – Putin: Vladimir Putin emphasized that Russia’s plan would mean ending the conflict once and for all, not freezing it,” June 14, 2024, Tass Russian News Agency accessed at https://tass.com/politics/1803657.

11 Ibid.

12 Article 2 of the United Nations Charter states: “The Organization and its members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles. 1 The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members….3 All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered…4 All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state….”

13 Eppstein, Code of International Ethics, 141-157 (para. 180-181, p. 142).

14 Eppstein, Code of International Ethics, 155 (para. 190).

15 Eppstein, Code of International Ethics, 153 (para. 188).

16 Cassese, 326.

17 Cassese, 343-345; Shaw, 1088-1089.

Facebook
X / Twitter
LinkedIn
Email