In the latest op-ed on the IDM Blog, Sebastian Schäffer reflects on the debate about how to achieve peace in Russia’s ongoing war of aggression against Ukraine. While all parties and their supporters call for peace, their visions of what it should look like differ dramatically. Do we seek just peace in the sense of merely ending hostilities, or just peace in the sense of a fair and sustainable settlement? This is the central question the op-ed explores. 

“If accepting the temporary occupation of part of its territory is what ensures Ukraine’s survival as an independent sovereign state, then so be it,” said Czech President Petr Pavel to the BBC in August 2025. While his remarks caution against pressuring Kyiv to reconquer all territory at once, they also raise a more urgent question, especially after the meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin: what kind of peace are we preparing for Ukraine and for Europe? 

International diplomacy often presents the word “peace” as the ultimate goal. . But for Ukraine, after more than a decade of Russian aggression culminating in the full-scale invasion of 2022, peace is not simply about ending violence. It is about ensuring that it does not lay the foundation for future atrocities. 

There is a difference between peace and a just peace. The former can be imposed; the latter must be earned. Unless justice is part of the post-war settlement, any peace agreement risks becoming a prelude to renewed conflict by rewarding aggression and silencing those who have suffered. 

The Legal Legacy of Lviv 

This is not a new argument. It is grounded in the intellectual and moral legacy of Lviv and whose jurists shaped international law as we know it today. 

Born within three years of one another – Hersch Lauterpacht (1897) and Raphael Lemkin (1900) – both studied law at the University of Lemberg/Lwów, which was back then part of Austria-Hungary and later the Polish Republic. They were shaped by the same legal traditions and the same brutal experiences of nationalism, displacement and genocide. Both became architects of a world in which peace would depend on justice, understood as an international rules based order, enshrined in what later would become the UN Charta. 

Lauterpacht introduced the concept of “crimes against humanity”, insisting that individuals – not just states – must be held accountable for atrocities. Lemkin, haunted by the extermination of his own family in the Holocaust, coined the term “genocide” and campaigned for its recognition as a distinct international crime. Their legacies live on in the Geneva Conventions, in the Rome Statute, and in today’s efforts to prosecute war crimes. 

But these were not merely legal innovations. They were moral imperatives born from Europe’s darkest hours and aimed at preventing their repetition. 

The Risk of Appeasement 

Today, the calls for a swift peace in Ukraine are growing louder. Some argue that the war has reached a stalemate and that compromise – perhaps involving territorial concessions or frozen conflict lines – might be the pragmatic path forward. 

But this line of thinking ignores a painful truth: a peace that leaves parts of Ukraine under foreign occupation, legitimizes mass deportations and erases war crimes is appeasement. And history has taught us the cost of appeasing violent authoritarianism. 

Such a settlement would not only betray Ukraine; it would ultimately dismantle the very foundations of the international legal order established after World War II. It would send a message to other aggressors that international norms are negotiable, that might makes right, and victims will not see justice. 

Ukraine is not simply defending its territory; it is defending the principle that law, not force, should govern the world. The concepts developed in Lviv by Lauterpacht and Lemkin demand to be more than historical footnotes. They must remain the foundation of peacebuilding today. 

Justice in the Voices of Witnesses 

This demand for justice is not limited to courtrooms or legal conferences. It echoes most powerfully through the testimonies of those whose lives have been shattered by Russia’s war. 

In Looking at Women Looking at War, the late Ukrainian writer Victoria Amelina – who was posthumously awarded with the UK Orwell Prize for Political Writing – assembled essays, interviews and fragments documenting the lives and losses of Ukrainian women. These are not passive accounts. They are acts of resistance. Amelina and her contributors wrote not merely to remember, but to ensure that the world does not forget. 

Amelina herself was killed in a Russian missile attack in Kramatorsk in 2023, after retrieving a war crimes diary from fellow writer Volodymyr Vakulenko, abducted and murdered during occupation. Her work and her death remind us that peace must include truth, recognition and dignity. Anything less is silence. 

Europe’s responsibility and Ukraine’s moral leadership 

The European Union (EU) has shown extraordinary solidarity with Ukraine, from military aid to opening accession talks. But a just peace will require more than arms and infrastructure. It demands sustained support for accountability mechanisms, transitional justice and the voices of victims. 

The EU’s engagement on these fronts – through the documentation of war crimes, support for the International Criminal Court and dialogue on transitional justice – must remain central to Ukraine’s integration process. Ukraine is not just aspiring to join the EU; it is already defending European values, often more fiercely than some existing members. 

Peace must be built on this foundation. 

The choice ahead 

On 25 June 2025, Ukraine and the Council of Europe have signed an agreement for a Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine to prosecute Russian leaders. The crime of aggression concerns the decision to launch armed force against another state in breach of the United Nations Charter. While the International Criminal Court (ICC) has jurisdiction to investigate war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide committed in Ukraine, it currently lacks the mandate to prosecute the crime of aggression in this context due to jurisdictional constraints. A Special Tribunal is therefore needed to address this legal gap. These twin developments underscore what Lviv’s legacy made clear: peace without justice is hollow. 

The effort to document atrocities, to build new legal frameworks, and to amplify voices like Amelina’s is not symbolic. It is the groundwork for lasting peace. The recent Trump–Putin meeting only reinforced this point. By framing peace as a deal between leaders rather than as a process rooted in justice and accountability, it is rewarding aggression and inviting further atrocities. The effort to document war crimes, to build new legal frameworks, and to amplify voices like Amelina’s is not symbolic. It is the groundwork for lasting peace.  

The foundations were laid in Lemberg, by Lauterpacht and Lemkin. They are being rebuilt in Kyiv, Bucha, Kharkiv and Lviv by those who continue to believe that justice is not the opposite of peace, but its precondition. 

Without a just peace, there is just peace – a temporary ceasefire in disguise, destined to erupt again. 

 

Sebastian Schäffer is director of the IDM.