Roundtable Blog: Peace Without Possession—Preserving Ukraine’s Territorial Integrity in Negotiations
Editor’s Note:
This post is part of the PILPG Lawyering Justice blog’s roundtable series. Rather than a traditional co-authored piece, it presents a curated set of expert reflections from members of PILPG’s Ukraine Peace Negotiations Working Group. Drawing on the diverse expertise of our Peace Fellows, this roundtable-style blog explores the discussion surrounding Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Published under the Lawyering Justice banner, this post reflects our commitment not only to chronicling the legal and diplomatic dimensions of active conflicts, but also to fostering strategic foresight and connecting lawyering to policy planning. We hope this format will serve as a model for future collaborative work on peace and justice.
***
In the context of ongoing hostilities, Ukraine faces a critical dilemma: how to enter into peace negotiations while lacking control over parts of its territory and with the understanding that negotiating the return of the territory is unlikely. The stakes are high. Any misstep could weaken Ukraine’s sovereignty claims, embolden future aggression, or fracture international consensus. With these risks in mind, the Public International Law & Policy Group’s Ukraine Peace Negotiations Working Group convened a roundtable to examine the legal, political, and strategic dimensions of preserving territorial integrity in the absence of de facto control.
Participants were asked to consider six interrelated questions: what is the legal basis for assessing territorial questions in Ukraine; how Ukraine can best negotiate without possession; what legal instruments preserve territorial claims over time; how EU and NATO pathways intersect with unresolved occupation; how to navigate dueling constitutional claims; and whether strategic ambiguity risks weakening Ukraine’s legal position. The discussion drew on comparative precedents, international law, and realpolitik assessments of the current diplomatic landscape.
The purpose of this public-facing Roundtable Blog is threefold: to inform Ukrainian policymakers and Peace Formula stakeholders of the legal and strategic variables shaping territorial negotiations; to connect Ukraine-focused expertise with broader international practice; and to provide analytically grounded perspectives that can guide the development of durable, sovereignty-preserving peace frameworks.
—
1. Territorial Integrity
What is the legal framework in which territorial questions should be assessed during peace negotiations?
Dr. Paul R. Williams
Any peace negotiations in Ukraine must be conducted within the framework of international law that categorically prohibits the acquisition of territory through aggression and affirms the principle of territorial integrity as enshrined in the UN Charter. The law of occupation makes clear that effective control does not alter sovereignty, meaning Ukraine’s legal title to its territory remains intact regardless of Russia’s presence on the ground. Negotiations must therefore assess territorial questions through the lens of continuity of non-recognition of unlawful annexation, ensuring that temporary arrangements or ceasefire lines are not mistaken for permanent borders. This framework preserves Ukraine’s sovereign rights while preventing the normalization of territorial conquest in international practice.
Sindija Beta
Any peace negotiations in Ukraine must recognize that territorial integrity is not simply a legal principle but a political safeguard against legitimizing aggression. International law prohibits territorial acquisition by force, and past precedents show that concessions made under pressure often become permanent fractures in rule of law. Ukraine’s legal title to its territory remains intact despite Russia’s military control, but negotiations must be structured to prevent Moscow from altering legal norms based on military force. Territorial questions should therefore be addressed as matters of international law, ensuring that the process reinforces international norms rather than erodes them.
Kateryna Kyrychenko
Territorial questions in peace negotiations must also account for the cultural rights at stake in the territories under temporary occupation. International human rights law guarantees the right of all communities to maintain their language, education, and cultural identity - rights that have been systematically violated in the occupied regions through forced Russification, the suppression of Ukrainian education, and efforts to erase local cultural heritage. These rights can only be meaningfully protected within Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders and under its legitimate authority.
Russia’s attempts to justify annexation through claims of “self-determination” or cultural protection have no legal basis: cultural rights are safeguarded through respect for territorial integrity, not through coerced referenda or occupation. Any peace negotiations must therefore reinforce non-recognition of Russia’s unlawful annexations and affirm that restoring Ukraine’s sovereignty is essential to protecting the cultural rights of affected communities.
Ambassador Ylber Hysa
Ukraine’s territorial integrity must remain the unambiguous end state of any negotiation process. It should not be reduced to declarative legal rhetoric. To reach this end state, the Ukrainian side may consider tactical and temporary transitional arrangements that facilitate the conditions for eventual full territorial reintegration.
These transitional steps would not replace or weaken Ukraine’s sovereignty claims. Rather, they provide operational pathways to realize them.
A feasible component of such a transitional framework is the establishment of a Peacekeeping Transitional Period (PTP) within the currently Russian-occupied territories. This PTP would operate under a UN-mandated or internationally mandated peacekeeping mission for a defined period (e.g., five years).
—
2. Peace Without Possession
How can Ukraine enter into a peace agreement while lacking control over parts of its territory without undermining its long-term legal claim to those regions?
Professor Michael Kelly
Overlaying a current military control map with Ukraine’s geological survey reveals that the western parts of Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia, which are still under Ukrainian control, contain significant rare earth mineral deposits. These resources are likely to become bargaining chips in any transactional negotiation, particularly given that the Trump administration has already signed a rare earths deal with Ukraine. This dynamic is expected to shape trilateral discussions between Trump, Zelenskyy, and Putin. A recent Just Security article co-authored with Craig Martin outlines this scenario in greater detail.
Ambassador Ylber Hysa
The western parts of Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia, currently Ukrainian-controlled areas, contain significant rare earth mineral deposits, which may become a factor in negotiations, particularly within a transactional framework associated with a potential future U.S. administration.
However, comparable geological resources exist in the Russian-occupied territories as well. These resources should therefore be integrated into negotiation strategies as potential assets. A useful historical precedent is the post–World War II Saar–Ruhr arrangements, where resource governance played a stabilizing and cooperative role without undermining national sovereignty.
Professor David Crane
Neither Putin nor Zelenskyy is politically positioned to concede territory. Putin has suffered too many casualties to retreat without consequence, and Zelenskyy would face political collapse if he conceded land after such sacrifice. This impasse suggests that the war is unlikely to end soon. One possible approach is to establish local self-governance in the occupied provinces under a ceasefire, supported by neutral third-party peacekeepers modeled on the Sinai mission. However, any such arrangement must rest on the international community’s continued recognition of these regions as Ukrainian territory.
Professor Milena Sterio
Under the law of occupation, control does not equate to sovereignty. Ukraine retains its de jure claim to all territories currently under Russian control. This legal distinction must be preserved in any peace framework, as it forms the foundation for future reintegration and international support.
Ambassador Elayne Whyte Gomez
The current situation represents a new paradigm. While the international community has consistently recognized Ukraine’s borders, which have been affirmed in seven UNGA resolutions, this year's events at UNGA and UN Security Council changed some configurations and alliances at the UN regarding some Ukraine-sponsored texts. Any peace process must remain anchored in international recognition to avoid legitimizing aggression through ambiguity.
Ambassador Zorica Marić-Djordjević
Ukraine can enter into peace negotiations without conceding sovereignty by managing occupation rather than ratifying it. International law prohibits the acquisition of territory by force. Peace agreements must include “without prejudice” clauses, avoid sovereignty language, and refer to occupied areas as “territories temporarily outside the effective control of the Government of Ukraine.” These legal choices are essential to shaping a post-war order that upholds international norms.
—
3. Legal Instruments for Continuity
What international legal instruments or precedents can Ukraine invoke to preserve its territorial claims over the long term?
Professor Milena Sterio
The law of occupation and the principle of non-recognition of territorial acquisition by force are Ukraine’s strongest legal tools. These doctrines have been upheld in numerous conflicts and must be embedded in any peace agreement. The agreement should avoid any implication of territorial transfer and instead reinforce Ukraine’s continuing legal title.
Ambassador Zorica Marić-Djordjević
Operationalizing legal continuity requires the use of administrative and security language rather than sovereignty terms. Ceasefire lines must not be mistaken for borders, and demilitarized zones must not imply territorial concessions. The legal framing must reflect temporary control, not permanent change, to ensure that Ukraine’s territorial claims remain intact.
Professor David Crane
Putin is relying on time and distraction to wear down Ukraine and its allies. In contrast, consistent international recognition serves as Ukraine’s legal and diplomatic shield. The tools exist; the challenge lies in using them visibly and persistently. Sustained and coordinated use of these instruments will ensure that Ukraine’s sovereignty remains protected even in the absence of immediate territorial control.
Ambassador Elayne Whyte Gomez
Ukraine’s principled legal position is gaining traction, particularly in the non-aligned countries. Many smaller states now see their own struggles reflected in Ukraine’s experience. This emerging solidarity could become a powerful force in sustaining legal continuity and resisting the normalization of occupation.
Ambassador Ylber Hysa
Ukraine can engage in peace negotiations without recognizing or legitimizing the occupation by adopting a framework that focuses on managing the temporary situation rather than accepting any permanent change.
To ensure this, ceasefire lines must not be interpreted as borders, demilitarized zones must not imply territorial concessions, and all legal and diplomatic language should explicitly describe any control arrangements as temporary and linked to a defined peacekeeping mandate. This approach preserves Ukraine’s sovereignty claims and prevents any de facto normalization of the occupation. It maintains the legal and political foundation for full territorial restoration once the international environment becomes more favorable.
—
4. EU and NATO Pathways
How should Ukraine’s territorial integrity be addressed in the context of EU accession or NATO integration, particularly if parts of its territory remain under foreign control?
Professor David Crane
EU accession remains one of the most powerful strategic signals the international community can send to Russia. It demonstrates that Europe is not prepared to walk away from Ukraine’s future. The credibility of this pathway lies not only in its symbolic value but in its potential to unlock long-term political and economic integration that reinforces Ukraine’s sovereignty.
Ambassador Elizabeth Richard
NATO membership is politically untenable in the current climate. It remains a red line for Russia and would likely trigger disproportionate demands in any negotiation. In contrast, EU membership is both strategically viable and politically palatable. It offers Ukraine a credible path forward without escalating tensions, and it should be prioritized accordingly.
H. E. Dr. Igor Luksic
The EU path is not only a matter of legal alignment but also of strategic necessity. Ukraine’s integration into the EU could unlock vital resources for reconstruction, economic stabilization, and institutional reform. The precedent of Finland’s post-war transformation is instructive. While not directly analogous, it illustrates how strategic alignment with Europe can serve as a stabilizing force. Ukraine should insist on this track with greater urgency.
Professor Michael Kelly
Cyprus provides a compelling precedent. Despite being territorially divided following Turkey’s 1974 invasion and the continued occupation of the northern part of the island, Cyprus acceded to the European Union in 2004 with the strong advocacy of Greece acting as its sponsor state. The EU’s legal framework accommodated this division by suspending the application of EU law in the occupied areas while affirming the Republic of Cyprus’s sovereignty over the entire island, thereby preserving the principle of non-recognition of occupation. For Ukraine, the precedent demonstrates that full and effective territorial control is not an absolute prerequisite for EU membership, provided there is a committed sponsor or coalition of states willing to champion its accession. The decisive factor will be whether EU leaders summon the political will to treat Ukraine’s membership as a strategic move that signals Europe’s refusal to compromise on sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Ambassador Zorica Marić-Djordjević
The legal and political layers of EU accession must be addressed in tandem. While full and effective control is typically required, the Cyprus model demonstrates that suspended application of EU law in occupied territories is feasible. What matters is that the EU explicitly affirms Ukraine’s territorial integrity and commits to reintegration and reconstruction. The EU should treat Ukraine’s accession as a strategic imperative, not a procedural formality.
Tyler Thompson
Russia’s preferred model for Ukraine is Austrian-style neutrality—a Cold War-era posture that avoids NATO alignment while preserving nominal sovereignty. EU membership, however, is a tolerable outcome for Moscow and should be leveraged accordingly. The United States should press Brussels to make a political decision, as it did with Portugal and Spain after their transitions from dictatorship. Strategic ambiguity on this front only benefits Russia.
—
5. Constitutional Claims
How can Ukraine navigate the fact that both it and Russia enshrine Donbas and Crimea in their constitutions?
Dr. Paul R. Williams
The challenge of dueling constitutional claims is not new, but it is particularly acute in this context. The international community must avoid falling into the trap of false equivalence. Its legal position is grounded in international law, while Russia’s rests on unilateral assertions and coercive annexation. The distinction must be made explicit in every negotiation and public communication.
Tyler Thompson
Russia has long used constitutional amendments and legal rhetoric to accumulate bargaining chips. This is part of a broader lawfare strategy, refined through its experiences in Georgia and Kosovo. The goal is not legal clarity but leverage. Ukraine and its allies must anticipate this and ensure that international legal standards, rather than domestic proclamations, frame the discussion.
Professor Milena Sterio
International law provides clear criteria for the legitimacy of referenda and declarations of independence. Any referendum must be free, fair, and conducted without coercion. Unilateral declarations obtained through force are invalid. Ukraine’s legal position is strong if it continues to emphasize these principles and avoids mirroring Russia’s constitutional framing.
Ambassador Zorica Marić-Djordjević
Russia’s invocation of Kosovo is legally flawed. Moscow repeatedly cites Kosovo as precedent in order to justify its annexation of Crimea and its claims over occupied Ukrainian territories, arguing that the West recognized unilateral secession in Kosovo and therefore cannot deny Russia the same right. This comparison, however, ignores critical distinctions. Kosovo was not annexed; Crimea was. Kosovo operated under a UN mandate and international oversight; Russia acted unilaterally and by force. Moreover, Serbia’s constitution still claims Kosovo, but that has not altered Kosovo’s international status. Ukraine must highlight these differences and reject any narrative that equates its legal position with Russia’s, underscoring that Russia’s reliance on Kosovo is a political tactic rather than a valid legal precedent.
Professor David Crane
Domestic constitutional claims are a distraction. They do not override international law and should not be treated as legitimate bargaining tools. Ukraine’s legal team must remain focused on international norms and avoid being drawn into debates over internal legal texts.
Ambassador Elayne Whyte Gomez
There is growing awareness among the non-aligned states of the power dynamics at play in Ukraine’s case. This creates an opportunity for Ukraine to build broader coalitions and reinforce its legal position through shared experience and solidarity. The moment is ripe for strategic engagement beyond traditional allies. Many of these states have themselves faced pressures from larger powers and are increasingly sensitive to questions of sovereignty and territorial integrity. By framing its struggle as part of a wider global narrative against coercion and annexation, Ukraine can strengthen its legitimacy and broaden the base of international support.
—
6. Strategic Ambiguity vs. Legal Clarity
Can Ukraine afford to use strategic ambiguity in peace negotiations, or does this risk weakening its long-term legal claim?
Professor Milena Sterio
Strategic ambiguity may offer tactical flexibility, but it carries long-term risks. Any ambiguity in the legal framing of a peace agreement could be exploited to undermine Ukraine’s territorial claims. The agreement must clearly distinguish between temporary arrangements and permanent sovereignty. Legal clarity is essential to preserving Ukraine’s rights under international law.
Tyler Thompson
Russia thrives in legal grey zones. Its lawfare strategy depends on exploiting ambiguity and reframing facts on the ground as legal precedent. Ukraine cannot afford to leave gaps in its legal position. Every omission becomes an opportunity for reinterpretation. The peace framework must be airtight.
Ambassador Elizabeth Richard
While the U.S. administration may appear distracted, the Department of Defense remains deeply engaged. There is still significant political and financial investment in Ukraine’s success, even if it operates below the radar. That institutional commitment should be leveraged to support a peace framework grounded in legal clarity and strategic foresight.
Ambassador Ylber Hysa
Peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia should be understood not as a single event, but as a complex, evolving process. Within this framework, Ukraine’s territorial integrity must be treated as an active strategic objective, guiding the negotiation dynamics rather than existing solely as a formal legal principle.
In this context, strategic ambiguity does not contradict legal clarity. Instead, it can serve as a pragmatic tool for securing Ukraine’s long-term strategic red lines while preserving diplomatic flexibility during negotiations.
*
Professor Michael Kelly: Professor at Creighton University School of Law and The Senator Allen A. Sekt Endowed Chair in Law
Professor David Crane: Founding Chief Prosecutor of the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone and Distinguished Scholar in Residence at Syracuse University College of Law
Professor Milena Sterio, the James A. Thomas Distinguished Professor of Law at Cleveland State University's Cleveland-Marshall College of Law and Managing Director at PILPG
Ambassador Elayne Whyte Gomez: Senior Fellow of the UN Institute for Disarmament Research, Professor at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, and former Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Costa Rica to the United Nations
Ambassador Zorica Marić-Djordjević: Former Head of the Permanent Mission of Montenegro to the WTO and Special Representative to the UN Human Rights Council
Ambassador Elizabeth Richard: Former U.S. Ambassador and Assistant Secretary of State for Conflict and Stabilization Operations
H. E. Dr. Igor Luksic: the former Prime Minister of Montenegro
Tyler Thompson: Chief Negotiation Officer & Co-Founder, Expeditionary
Ambassador Ylber Hysa: Former Ambassador of the Republic of Kosovo to Montenegro and North Macedonia
Dr. Paul R. Williams: Rebecca Grazier Professor of Law and International Relations at American University
Sindija Beta: Legal Officer at Public International Law & Policy Group
Kateryna Kyrychenko: Head of Ukraine Legal Affairs and Program Management at Public International Law & Policy Group