Getting peace right: Why justice needs to be baked into ceasefire agreements – including Ukraine’s

Efforts to end the war in Ukraine have grabbed global attention, fueled by debates over U.S. President Donald Trump’s – which many analysts see as – and European .

We’ve been here before. Failed attempts to end the conflict date back to the beginning, soon after . After Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, peace discussions started up again , and they have .

Prospects for a lasting peace remain dubious. One reason, I believe, is that the proposals pay little attention to the relationship between peace and justice – a flaw shared by .

Is peace worth having if it’s unjust? Is justice worth pursuing if it prolongs war? Those are questions as troubling as they are old. “,” as St. Thomas Aquinas argued in the 13th century. Ceasefires built on coercion or exhaustion inevitably fail because they do not resolve the conflict’s causes.

Aquinas is a major figure in the just war tradition, the focus of . This area of ethics helps weigh when war is justified – and also how it should end.

Today, the insight that peace and justice are inseparable grounds what international law terms “.” By and assuring , this approach seeks to disrupt recurring cycles of violence.

aimed at ending the conflict in Ukraine failed because in the rush to stop the fighting, they ignored questions of justice. The literature on transitional justice, by contrast, encourages negotiators to : truth, justice, reparations and safeguards against future recurrence.

1. Truth

Truth is essential for peace. As St. Augustine, one of the earliest Christian just-war thinkers, put it in the fourth century, “” arises when the pursuit of truth is abandoned.

Durable peace agreements require all sides to cooperate with international efforts to document war crimes and human rights violations, such as the United Nations’ . This is no small task. So far, Ukraine to outside investigators, but Russia , even when it has of war crimes.

But reconciliation requires a complete accounting of the harms done. Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who headed South Africa’s after the end of apartheid, explained that “, which has to be based on an acknowledgment of what was done wrong, and therefore on disclosure of the truth.”

Truth-telling also prevents false narratives from creating “justifications” for renewed fighting. Thus, peace in Ukraine will require a global effort to legitimizing Russia’s aggression and .

2. Justice

Justice demands holding perpetrators to account. If, as Aquinas argued, a just war is “” or seeks “to restore what [has been] seized unjustly,” ignoring these concerns when ending a war would itself be unjust.

Treating collaborators with fairness . In some cases, pardoning individuals who acted under duress – and even willing but nonviolent collaborators who fully disclose their actions – can support . Especially in areas once occupied by enemy forces, frank confessions can help .

However, amnesty for war crimes and crimes against humanity because pardons deny victims justice and may embolden future perpetrators. The has issued for six Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin. Meanwhile, the Council of Europe has established a , which would prosecute senior Russian officials who ordered the .

Realistically, neither forum can try those responsible without either Russia’s defeat or Putin’s removal from power. But in the interim, other countries can continue Ukrainian courts .

Justice also requires holding one’s own side accountable, even if the other side will not reciprocate. Allegations of war crimes by Ukrainian soldiers are , but Ukrainian courts must also prosecute these. Fair trials for all combatants are essential, lest, as Aquinas cautions, judgments seek “.”

3. Reparations

Reparations aim to make survivors whole again. This principle, too, has roots in classical just war thinking. The 16th-century theologian Francisco de Vitoria, for example, argued that reparations within the bounds of “” could help redress losses and restore justice.

The World Bank estimates that direct damage in Ukraine is over US$176 billion; in total, . The Council of Europe has recommended using to fund reconstruction efforts, as have some . The illegality of Russia’s invasion means that .

can also serve as reparations, but Russia is unlikely to proffer any – partly because domestic political pressures mean .

Commemorative events also validate . The international community can in to the war.

4. Deterrence

Peace lasts when the parties trust that the violence won’t reoccur.

However, Russia has . That includes meant to bring the conflict to an end, back in 2014.

That summer, Russian-backed separatists , spurring the international community to seek a quick resolution. The Minsk agreements, signed in and , established and required the removal of foreign military units. They also demanded Ukrainian constitutional reforms – ostensibly to secure more autonomy for the country’s largely Russian-speaking east.

The Minsk agreements temporarily froze the conflict, but relative quiet didn’t mean peace. Ceasefire violations were perpetual. Russian-supported militias , and Russia continued and to the Donbas. Human rights violations . And in February 2022, Russia launched its full-scale invasion.

Given this history, a durable peace would require that Russia accept constraints on its power. The put forth since 2022, however, have demanded security concessions only from Kyiv, requiring Ukraine to abandon hopes for and restricting the .

Russia is unlikely to agree to caps on its military. Deterrence, then, could take the form of from other countries to enforce whatever peace agreement emerges.

Ukraine’s vulnerability to future Russian aggression means it will need from its partners. Russia will not sign a treaty that permits Ukraine to join NATO, which Moscow claims would be a threat. Other possible safeguards for Ukrainian sovereignty include a proposed or an alternative set of .

Lasting peace

Ultimately, a durable peace requires considering both sides’ legitimate security and justice claims if, as Vitoria wrote in 1539, “.”

Therein lies the catch. Transnational justice , with aggressors trying to . Separating fact from fiction, and genuine concerns from manufactured pretext, is essential at the negotiating table.

A quick end to the war is tempting, but a hasty peace is a fragile one. A durable peace, rather than yet another ceasefire, requires attention to justice – even if that takes more time to achieve.