The year 2024 showed that Ukraine and the world have been moving along two parallel tracks: “diplomacy of justice” and “diplomacy of interests,” and these tracks do not intersect. It is like two parallel tracks on which oncoming trains run, but the difference between two geometric parallel lines and tracks is that at the nearest station the tracks can intersect, while geometric parallels never do.
It turns out that in addition to the war at the front against the Russian army, Ukraine is forced to repeatedly prove that “justice” in achieving peace is a key concept not only in terms of restoring the importance of international law, but also in showing that tacit acknowledgement of the consequences of aggression leads to its continuation.
It is fair to appeal to the signatories of the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, but as we have understood, this does not work. Because each of the signatories proceeds from their own interests: “What will I gain by demanding fair punishment for Russia if the economy is dependent on the Kremlin’s energy resources?”
This was precisely the response of Mongolian representatives to the West’s call to arrest Putin at the completely legitimate request of the International Criminal Court during a visit to the country on Sept. 2. And the only conclusion here seems to suggest is where the economic interest is more important, the implementation of the law is left aside.
Such an easy walk could not be guaranteed to Putin in South Africa, where the Kremlin leader was supposed to arrive for the BRICS summit in July 2023. Because he would actually be arrested. Therefore, they suggested that he speak via video link.
From these two examples, we can make a conclusion that in today’s realities, “justice of punishment” is a selective category and depends on the degree of economic interest involved on the part of the party that works with the country violating international law, especially in its criminal jurisdiction.
Strange as it may seem, justice is a safeguard against chaos. In Ancient Greece, justice was considered the foundation of social life. Philosophers of those times emphasized that the greatest evil is injustice, which undermines the foundations of social existence. In the period of Modern Times, justice became the basis of the concept of a state governed by the rule of law, where the “law of might” gave way to the “power of law.” Such a replacement made it possible to create a society based on equality, where “good” and “anti-good” were clearly distinguished – as one that promotes the coexistence of citizens, and the other which harms it.
Justice and international law
One of the key principles of international law is the prevention of anarchy. If the subjects of international relations act according to the ancient laws of force, this usually leads to conflicts and wars. History has repeatedly confirmed this pattern.
Canadian historian Margaret Macmillan, in her book “War. How Conflict Shaped Us,” emphasizes that war is an almost inseparable feature of humanity: “War is the norm, peace is the exception.” However, a permanent state of war would mean chaos, so elites have always looked for ways to ensure stability and order.
Post-war justice
To avoid chaos after World War II, clear rules of coexistence were established. The fairness of punishment for violations of these rules became an important deterrent. International documents on ensuring responsibility for aggression were aimed at ensuring that such violence would never occur again.
The bloody twentieth century proved to be a lesson for many countries, forcing them to seek ways to peace. After the failure of the League of Nations, international law was significantly expanded, covering almost all countries and peoples. The slogan “Never again!” became the main idea for most states, although some countries remained outside this consensus.
Challenges to justice today
Today, diplomacy of interests often undermines diplomacy of justice. However, justice remains the basis of a stable world order. Ukraine, which is now a symbol of the struggle for justice, reminds the world of the importance of adhering to the principles of international law. In conditions when aggression violates borders and undermines the global order, justice must become not only a moral ideal, but also a practical tool to ensure peace.
This struggle for justice is crucial for the future. Whether the world can take its side will determine not only the fate of individual countries, but also the stability of the entire international system.
And this is not just about the results of 2024. The next 2025 will be the year when the confrontation will continue, but it will reach the level of “value or benefit.” If we talk about the second option, then it will be considered fair that peace can be achieved at the cost of Ukraine, but will it be a fair peace?
A just peace is when international law protects the one who has been attacked, and does not adapt to the one who owns the rule of force.
So, it turns out that the one who has force is right today? Instead, Ukraine, in its defense, proves every day that the one who has freedom should be right. After all, this is the value that is not subject to force.
The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.