Nazar Syvak
The ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war has sparked global debates about what a just peace might entail. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy emphasizes a ‘just peace’ that includes the restoration of Ukraine’s sovereignty and reparations from Russia. Other proposals—ranging from freezing battle lines to territorial concessions—reflect competing visions of resolution. But what does justice require after such a conflict? Jus post bellum, a Just War theory concept that deals with the morality of ending wars, establishes a framework for building peace that addresses both immediate needs and long-term stability. This article will review the application of jus post bellum to the Russo-Ukrainian war and outline the ideal-case peace to end it justly.
The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace, but it does not mean restoring the prewar status quo. As Michael Walzer explains in his chapter in Ethics Beyond War’s End, those were the exact conditions that brought the conflict and allowed the aggressor to wage war. Thus, a more secure and just state of affairs is needed than the one that existed prior to the war. Ukraine is fighting a just defensive war respecting the jus in bello principles, while Russia violated international law by invading Ukraine with its military committing war crimes against Ukrainians, making any Russia-proposed peace not only unjust but also false, setting the ground for further aggression.
No comments:
Post a Comment