In the halls of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Kyiv, the conversation regarding the complete of the war in Ukraine has shifted from the immediate tactical needs of the front line to a broader, more existential legal battle. For Mariana Betsa, Ukraine’s deputy minister of foreign affairs, the path toward a sustainable resolution is not found in a simple cessation of hostilities, but in the rigorous application of international law.
Speaking on the legal aftermath of the conflict, Betsa argues that the global community is at a crossroads. The war, which she emphasizes began not in 2022 but with the occupation of Crimea and parts of the Donbas in 2014, is being framed by Kyiv as a test of whether the post-WWII international order still possesses the will to enforce its own rules. At the heart of this struggle is a singular, stark conviction: that the failure to punish aggression only invites more of it.
For Ukraine, the discourse around Ukraine’s Deputy FM on peace and accountability centers on the concept of a “just peace.” This is not a diplomatic euphemism for a ceasefire, but a specific set of legal and humanitarian prerequisites that must be met before stability can be restored to the region.
The Three Pillars of a Just Peace
According to Betsa, a peace that ignores the root causes of the conflict or the crimes committed during We see merely a pause in hostilities. She outlines three non-negotiable requirements for any legitimate resolution: the full recognition of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity; the prosecution of Russian political and military leadership; and the return of all captured citizens, including prisoners of war and abducted children.
| Pillar | Objective | Legal Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Sovereignty | Full restoration of territorial integrity | UN Charter |
| Justice | Prosecution of war criminals | International Humanitarian Law |
| Humanitarian | Return of deported children and POWs | Geneva Conventions |
Betsa warns that the international community’s reaction in 2014—which she describes as insufficiently strong—created a dangerous precedent. She suggests that the hope that Russia might change its behavior was a miscalculation, and that the current full-scale invasion is the logical conclusion of that initial impunity.
Diplomatic Friction and the UN Mandate
The diplomatic struggle has recently played out in New York, where a UN General Assembly resolution focused on an immediate and unconditional ceasefire was put to a vote. Whereas the United States abstained, the resolution saw significant support, with 107 states voting in favor and only 12 voting with Russia.
Betsa views this result as a major diplomatic victory, particularly in its ability to mobilize the Global South. She contends that while the resolution emphasizes a ceasefire as a prerequisite, Ukraine has long been open to such a step, provided it is accompanied by confidence-building measures and monitoring. In contrast, she points to Russia’s intensified attacks on energy grids and critical infrastructure as evidence that Moscow is not acting in good faith.
Addressing the perceived fragility of transatlantic unity, Betsa remains optimistic. She noted the continued support of the United States and expressed gratitude for efforts to bring peace closer, acknowledging that the process is complex but necessary. She rejects the notion that the war is merely a “regional” or “European” conflict, arguing instead that the outcome will determine the fate of democratic communities worldwide.
Accountability as a Security Guarantee
Perhaps the most urgent aspect of Betsa’s portfolio is the legal pursuit of war crimes. She describes the deportation of Ukrainian children as the “largest state-sponsored abduction operation” in modern history, citing that approximately 20,000 children have been illegally deported to Russia.
For the Ukrainian government, these are not merely humanitarian tragedies but crimes against humanity that require a systemic legal response. This has led to the pursuit of arrest warrants through the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the push for a Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression.
“If aggression goes unpunished, it will happen again. What encourages aggressors is weakness and impunity.”
The proposed Special Tribunal is designed to close a legal gap: while the ICC can prosecute specific war crimes, the Special Tribunal would target the “crime of aggression” itself, ensuring that high-ranking officials and heads of state cannot claim immunity for the decision to launch an illegal war. Betsa argues that this is the only true security guarantee; the knowledge that a perpetrator cannot escape justice is a more effective deterrent than any written treaty.
The Global Stakes of the Legal Battle
The Deputy Minister acknowledges that institutions like the UN and the OSCE are not ideal and are often slow to respond. However, she insists they remain essential tools for the political isolation of Russia and the documentation of crimes. The goal, she says, is to prove that these institutions are still capable of taking action, thereby defeating Russia’s attempt to demonstrate their irrelevance.
This legal framework also extends to the state’s responsibility. While individuals are held criminally accountable, Betsa maintains that the Russian Federation as a state must bear responsibility under international law for the damages and losses incurred by the Ukrainian people.
As the conflict persists, the next critical checkpoints will be the continued enforcement of ICC warrants and the formalization of the Special Tribunal’s jurisdiction. These legal milestones will serve as the primary indicators of whether the international community is moving toward a “just peace” or accepting a fragile, temporary silence.
We invite readers to share their perspectives on the role of international courts in modern conflict in the comments below.
