Imposing neutrality on Ukraine contradicts international law – scholars

Ukrainian legal experts stated that Russia’s demand for Ukraine’s “neutral” status is legally baseless and would set a dangerous international precedent.

Olga Butkevych

Olga Butkevych, Doctor of Law and President of the Ukrainian Association of International Law pointed out at the Ukraine Crisis Media Center during an expert discussion in Kyiv that if Ukraine, as a party to a classic armed conflict and as a victim of aggression, agrees to the aggressor’s terms, it could create a precedent and make it impossible to form a new system of collective security in Europe and for universal collective security.

Doctor of Law explained that Ukraine, by documenting international crimes and violations, has identified gaps in various spheres of international law. Thus, Ukraine could constructively propose improving international humanitarian law and the law of armed conflicts. 

“Ukraine is collecting these facts and evidence, and can constructively come forward with a proposal, for example, to improve both international humanitarian law and the law of armed conflicts and the law of other spheres, particularly the protection of the environment and cultural values during armed conflicts. With these documents, Ukraine can make a constructive contribution,” the scholar said, adding that at the same time, Ukraine could create a negative precedent if the victim of aggression agrees to the aggressor’s terms.

“If Ukraine creates a precedent where the victim of aggression agrees to the aggressor’s terms, it will make it impossible to form a new system of collective security in Europe and for universal collective security, and the old one will be finished. This will create a negative precedent for international law and will introduce a certain chaos into international relations and into all possible future conflicts. Therefore, Ukraine bears a huge responsibility before the world as a victim of aggression and as a state that can offer a constructive solution to the problems of international law,” emphasized Olga Butkevych.

According to Valeriy Chalyy, Chairman of the Board of the Ukraine Crisis Media Center, the issue of imposing neutrality on Ukraine by the aggressor country is carried over from one document produced by Moscow to another. Consequently, this issue features in negotiations and media narratives.

Specifically, such a proposal of disarmed neutrality appeared immediately after the demand for the seizure of part of Ukraine’s territory in the “memorandum”і that Moscow presented to Ukraine in Istanbul.

“In Istanbul, back in 2022, the demand was the same. This is the Russian vision, which was rejected at that time. But now there will definitely be a second attempt. This attempt will continue. This memorandum that the Russians have now proposed has also been given to the United States of America. I have verified, and that demand is in there,” said Chaly.

Olga Butkevych explained that Ukraine’s neutral status has no legal basis and is an instrument of external influence. She noted that neutrality in the classic sense is only possible under conditions of a threat’s absence, consensus between the parties, and society’s consent. None of these factors is present now.

All experts during the discussion agreed that countries with experience of neutrality are gradually moving away from it in favor of collective security. The examples of Sweden, Finland, and Austria show that even traditionally neutral states are rethinking their role in the security environment after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

The Doctor of Law stressed that Ukraine’s course towards NATO is a political and security decision.

Ihor Zeman, Candidate of Law, Associate Professor, and Deputy Dean of the Faculty of International Relations at Ivan Franko National University of Lviv, examined the issue of neutrality in its international legal dimension. He noted that the forcible imposition of neutral status contradicts the fundamental principles of international law, particularly the principle of the sovereign equality of states. He also emphasized that no international organization has a mandate to impose a certain form of status on a country.

Ihor Zeman

Furthermore, he recalled that neutrality is a state’s political self-determination, not an international obligation, and if a country decides to be neutral, it must declare this independently, without external pressure.

Olga Butkevych pointed out that Moscow’s demands contradict Article 46 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which declares that international obligations conflicting with fundamental norms of domestic law are void. The Russian side’s demands in the memorandum regarding neutrality and the incorporation of Ukrainian territories into the Russian Federation contradict the norms of the Ukrainian Constitution.

Similarly, according to Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations.

In addition, she pointed to Ukraine’s obligations to the European Union in the process of European integration. According to Article 4 of the Treaty on European Union, states are obliged to withdraw from all treaties that contradict the EU’s norms, principles, and standards. This means that Ukraine, by agreeing to Moscow’s memorandum, makes it impossible for Ukraine to continue its European integration process.

Zakhar Tropin, a law Candidate and Associate Professor at the Department of International Law of the Institute of International Relations at Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, indicated that Moscow’s demand to “enshrine neutrality” in the Constitution or at the international level is not an attempt to end the war but an instrument for political control over Ukraine.

“The imposition and implementation of Ukraine’s neutrality will only contribute to and encourage the Russian Federation towards further aggressive actions against Ukraine,” he stressed.

Tropin also noted that from a historical perspective, Russia has always used such rhetoric to legitimize its influence and halt Ukraine’s European integration processes. Therefore, any concessions in this direction could lead to a loss of agency.

Summarizing the discussion, moderator Valeriy Chalyy emphasized that the issue of neutrality is not just academic. It is a politically sensitive tool that can have long-term consequences for Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty, and security. He called on the public and politicians to be attentive to the content of such “peace” proposals and not to allow the loss of what has already been gained at the cost of enormous sacrifices.

As a reminder, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy recently stated that a top-level meeting between leaders is necessary to stop Russian aggression and establish a stable peace.

According to Zelenskyy, Ukraine welcomes the efforts of U.S. President Donald Trump aimed at ending the war, stopping the killings, and achieving a dignified and lasting peace.

Earlier, political scientist and historian Andreas Umland warned that Russia’s actions in Ukraine could serve as a dangerous template for other revisionist powers, particularly threatening states in the Global South that lack protective alliances similar to NATO or the EU.