Could VCLT 52 Block a Peace Treaty Entailing Territory Transfer After the Ukraine-Russia War?

Abstract

This study examines the scope and limitations of Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) in the context of a potential Ukraine-Russia peace treaty involving territorial transfer. While VCLT 52 invalidates treaties concluded under coercion, its misinterpretation as an absolute prohibition on post-conflict territorial agreements has fueled debate. The interplay between coercion, realpolitik, and treaty validity requires a precise legal framework to prevent contradictions in conflict resolution.

The first section traces the historical evolution of coercion as a ground for treaty invalidation, from the Peace of Westphalia to modern treaty law. The second section examines realpolitik and coercion, emphasizing that VCLT 52 addresses coercion as a matter of form rather than content. While territorial transfers are not inherently invalid, treaties violating jus cogens norms, such as genocide, fall under VCLT 53.

The final section applies these principles to the Ukraine-Russia conflict, assessing whether territorial concessions in a negotiated peace could be legally binding. The study challenges the assumption that all post-war territorial treaties are ab initio invalid, reaffirming the doctrinal and judicial acquis of international law, particularly the primacy of the pacta sund servanda principle

Keywords

• VCLT Article 52
• Ukraine-Russia war
• coercion in international law
• invalidity of treaties
• pacta sund servanda

VAHS 52, Ukrayna-Rusya Savaşı Sonrasında Ülke Transferini İçeren Bir Barış Antlaşmasını Engelleyebilir mi?

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Viyana Antlaşmalar Hukuku Sözleşmesi'nin (VAHS) 52. maddesinin kapsamını ve sınırlarını, toprak transferini içeren olası bir Ukrayna-Rusya barış antlaşması bağlamında incelemektedir. VAHS 52, cebir yoluyla akdedilen antlaşmaları geçersiz kılarken, savaş sonrası toprak anlaşmalarına mutlak bir yasak olarak yanlış yorumlanması hukuki tartışmalara yol açmıştır. Cebir, reel politik ve antlaşma geçerliliği arasındaki etkileşim, çelişkilerin önlenmesi için kesin bir hukuki çerçeve gerektirmektedir.

Çalışmanın ilk bölümü, Westphalia Barışı’ndan modern antlaşma hukukuna kadar cebrin bir antlaşma geçersizliği sebebi olarak tarihsel gelişimini ele almaktadır. İkinci bölümde reel politik ve cebir ilişkisi incelenmekte, VAHS 52’nin cebri içerikten ziyade şekli bir unsur olarak ele aldığı vurgulanmaktadır. Toprak transferleri doğası gereği geçersiz olmamakla birlikte, soykırım gibi jus cogens normlarını ihlal eden antlaşmalar VAHS 53 kapsamında değerlendirilmelidir.

Son bölümde bu ilkeler Ukrayna-Rusya çatışmasına uygulanarak, müzakere edilebilecek bir barış sürecinde toprak tavizlerinin hukuken bağlayıcı olup olamayacağı analiz edilmektedir. Çalışma, savaş sonrası tüm ülke transferi antlaşmalarının baştan geçersiz olduğu varsayımına meydan okuyarak, özellikle pacta sund servanda ilkesinin öneminden hareketle uluslararası hukukun doktrinel ve yargısal müktesebatını teyit etmektedir.

Keywords

• VAHS 52. madde
• Ukrayna-Rusya savaşı
• uluslararası hukukta cebir
• antlaşmaların geçersizliği
• pacta sund servanda

References

1. Albayrak K, Semavi Dinlerde Barış ve Şiddet İkilemi (Sarkaç 2010). google scholar
2. Balibar É, We, the People of Europe?: Reflections on Transnational Citizenship (Princeton University Press 2004). google scholar
3. Brierly J, The Law of Nations (Clarendon Press 1963). google scholar
4. De Visscher C, Theory and Reality in Public International Law (Corbett Translation 1968). google scholar
5. Dörr O and Schmalenbach K, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary (Springer 2018). google scholar
6. Goodrich LM and Hambro E, Charter of the United Nations: Commentary and Documents (1949). google scholar
7. Grotius H, De Iure Belli Ac Pacis (trans Francis W Kelsey, Clarendon Press 1925). google scholar
8. Hackworth GH, Digest of International Law (U.S. Government Printing Office 1943). google scholar

9. Hegel GWF, The Philosophy of Right (Sümer Yayıncılık 2015). google scholar
10. Henkin L, Force, Intervention, and Neutrality in Contemporary International Law (1963). google scholar
11. Hornbeck SK, Contemporary Politics in the Far East (D. Appleton 1916). google scholar
12. Hughes CE, Our Relations to the Nations of the Western Hemisphere (Princeton University Press 1928). google scholar
13. Hyde CC, International Law, Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied by the United States (Little, Brown 1945). google scholar
14. Keeton GW, Extraterritoriality in International and Comparative Law (Volume 72) (1948). google scholar
15. Koskenniemi M, From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument (Cambridge University Press 2006). google scholar
16. Lauterpacht H, Private Law Sources and Analogies of International Law (with Special Reference to International Arbitration) (Longmans, Green and Company, Limited 1927). google scholar
17. –––, The Pact of Paris and the Budapest Articles of Interpretation (Grotius Society 1935). google scholar
18. Morgenthau HJ, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (Knopf 1948). google scholar
19. Mulder N, The Economic Weapon: The Rise of Sanctions as a Tool of Modern War (Yale University Press 2022). google scholar
20. Nair LM, The Law of Treaties (Oxford University Press 1961). google scholar
21. Oppenheim LFL, International Law: Peace, vol 1 (Longmans, Green & Co. 1937). google scholar
22. Phillipson C, Termination of War and Treaties of Peace (T.F. Unwin Limited 1916). google scholar
23. Pufendorf Sv, De Jure Naturae Et Gentium Libri Octo (William S. Hein, Incorporated 1995). google scholar
24. Ross A, A Textbook of International Law: General Part (Lawbook Exchange 1947). google scholar
25. School HL, Research in International Law under the Auspices of the Faculty of the Harvard Law School, Part III, art. 32 (1935). google scholar
26. Shafirov PPb, A Discourse Concerning the Just Causes of the War Between Sweden and Russia: 1700-1721 (Oceana Publications 1973). google scholar
27. Simma B, From Bilateralism to Community Interest in International Law (Volume 250) (Brill | Nijhoff). google scholar
28. Sinclair SIM, The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Manchester University Press 1984). google scholar
29. Smith A and Stewart D, The Theory of Moral Sentiments: Or, An Essay Towards an Analysis of the Principles (Wells and Lilly 1817). google scholar
30. Vattel Ed, Le droit des gens (Fenwick CG tr, Carnegie institution of Washington 1916). google scholar
31. Wolff C, Jus gentium methodo scientifica pertractatum (trans Joseph H Drake, Clarendon Press 1934). google scholar
32. Wood G-Z, The Shantung Question: A Study in Diplomacy and World Politics (Fleming H. Revell Company 1922). google scholar
33. Young CW, The International Legal Status of the Kwantung Leased Territory (Johns Hopkins Press 1931). google scholar
34. Zimmermann R, The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition (Oxford University Press 1996). google scholar
35. Ciampi A, ‘Invalidity and Termination of Treaties and Rules of Procedure’ in Cannizzaro E (ed), The Law of Treaties Beyond the Vienna Convention (Oxford Academic, Oxford University Press 2011). google scholar
36. Craven M, ‘The Ends of Consent’ in Bowman MJ and Kritsiotis D (eds), Conceptual and Contextual Perspectives on the Modern Law of Treaties (Cambridge University Press 2018). google scholar
37. Forlati S, ‘Coercion as a Ground Affecting the Validity of Peace Treaties’ in Cannizzaro E (ed), The Law of Treaties Beyond the Vienna Convention (Oxford Academic, Oxford University Press 2011). google scholar
38. Gianelli A, ‘Absolute Invalidity of Treaties and Their Non-Recognition by Third States’ in Cannizzaro E (ed), The Law of Treaties Beyond the Vienna Convention (Oxford Academic, Oxford University Press 2011). google scholar
39. Greenwood C, ‘Scope of Application of Humanitarian Law’ in Fleck D (ed), The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law (Oxford University Press 2009). google scholar
40. Miltner B, ‘Territory and Its Relationship to Treaties’ in Bowman MJ and Kritsiotis D (eds), Conceptual and Contextual Perspectives on the Modern Law of Treaties (Cambridge University Press 2018). google scholar
41. Onuf N, “Constructivism: A User’s Manual” in Kubalkova V, Onuf N and Kowert P (eds), International Relations in a Constructed World (Routledge 2015). google scholar
42. van de Poel I and Fahlquist JN, ‘Risk and Responsibility’ in Roeser S and others (eds), Handbook of Risk Theory: Epistemology, Decision Theory, Ethics, and Social Implications of Risk (Springer Netherlands 2012). google scholar
43. Verhoeven J, ‘Invalidity of Treaties: Anything New in/under the Vienna Conventions?’ in Cannizzaro E (ed), The Law of Treaties Beyond the Vienna Convention (Oxford Academic, Oxford University Press 2011). google scholar
44. ‘Article 32. Duress’ 29 American Journal of International Law 1148-1161. google scholar
45. Al-Enazy AH, ‘“The International Boundary Treaty” (Treaty of Jeddah) Concluded Between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Yemeni Republic on June 12,2000’ 96 American Journal of International Law 161-173. google scholar
46. Bothe M, ‘Consequences of the Prohibition of the Use of Force-Comments on Arts. 49 and 70 of the ILC's 1966 Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties’ 27 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 507-519. google scholar
47. Briggs HW, ‘The Travaux Préparatoires of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties’ 65 The American Journal of International Law 705-712. google scholar
48. Conforti B and Labella A, ‘Invalidity and Termination of Treaties: The Role of National Courts’ 1 European Journal of International Law 44-66. google scholar
49. Crawford E, Lukin A and Mowbray J, ‘The Terminology of the Law of Warfare: A Linguistic Analysis of State Practice’ 14 Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies 197-222. google scholar
50. de Jong HG, ‘Coercion in the conclusion of treaties: A consideration of Articles 51 and 52 of the Convention on the the Law of Treaties’ 15 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 209-247. google scholar
51. Erades, ‘The Netherlands Decree on Enemy Property and Trade Marks owned by Sudeten Germans—Extraterritorial Effect of Czechoslovakian Legislation on Confiscation—Persona Stanai in Judicio of Germans—Situs of Trade Marks’ 4 Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Internationaal Recht 428-432. google scholar
52. Erkiner HH, ‘Grotius Öncesinde İlk Modern Uluslararası Hukuk Düşüncesinin Oluştuğu Tarihsel Koşullar ve Erken Klâsik Dönemdeki Öğreti’ 18 Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi 51-146. google scholar
53. Erkiner HH and Nacar A, ‘Strengthening Environmental Soft Law Commitments with the Principle of Pacta Sunt Servanda’ 21 Galatasaray Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 231-264. google scholar
54. Fenwick CG, ‘The Outlook for International Law’ 33 American Journal of International Law 105-108. google scholar
55. Fitzmaurice G, ‘The Juridical Clauses of the Peace Treaties’ 73 Recueil des Cours 259-367. google scholar
56. Floyd R and Webber M, ‘Making amends: emotions and the western response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine’ 100 International Affairs 1149-1169. google scholar
57. Frankfurt HG, ‘Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility’ 66 Journal of Philosophy 829-839. google scholar
58. Hershey AS, ‘Legal Status of the Brest-Litovsk and Bucharest Treaties in the Light of Recent Disclosures and of International Law’ 12 The American Journal of International Law 815-820. google scholar
59. Jennings, RY, "General course on principles of international law" 121 Recueil des Cours 563. google scholar
60. MacIntyre AC, ‘Hume on "Is" and "Ought"’ 68 The Philosophical Review 451-468. google scholar
61. Malawer SS, ‘Imposed Treaties and International Law’ 7 California Western International Law Journal 1-178. google scholar
62. Milano E, ‘Security Council Action in the Balkans: Reviewing the Legality of Kosovo's Territorial Status’ 14 European Journal of International Law 999-1022. google scholar
63. Milanovic M, ‘Revisiting Coercion as an Element of Prohibited Intervention in International Law’ 117 American Journal of International Law 601-650. google scholar
64. Murphy C, ‘Economic Duress and Unequal Treaties’ 11 Virginia Journal of International Law 51-69. google scholar Nahlik SE, ‘The Grounds of Invalidity and Termination of Treaties’ 65 American Journal of International Law 736-756. google scholar
65. Negro GD, ‘The Validity of Treaties Concluded under Coercion of the State: Sketching a TWAIL Critique’ 10 European Journal of Legal Studies 39-60. google scholar
66. Paparinskis M, ‘Crippling Compensation in the International Law Commission and Investor–State Arbitration’ 37 ICSID Review - Foreign Investment Law Journal 289-312. google scholar
67. Partridge CE, ‘Political and Economic Coercion: Within the Ambit of Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties?’ 5 The International Lawyer 755-769. google scholar
68. Polianskii M, ‘Russian Foreign Policy Research and War in Ukraine: Old Answers to New Questions?’ 57 Communist and Post-Communist Studies 156-172. google scholar
69. Quigley HS, ‘Legal Phases of the Shantung Questions’ 6 Minnesota Law Review 380-394. google scholar
70. Scheuner U, ‘Conflict of Treaty Provisions with a Peremptory Norm of General International Law and its Consequences: Comments on Arts. 50, 61 and 67 of the ILC's 1966 Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties’ 520-532. google scholar
71. Toluner S, ‘Objektif Hukuki Durum Yaratan Andlaşmalar Kavramı Gerekli midir?’ 25 Milletlerarası Hukuk ve Milletlerarası Özel Hukuk Bülteni 519-580. google scholar
72. Williams JF, ‘The New Doctrine of "Recognition"’ 18 Transactions of the Grotius Society 109-129. google scholar Wright Q, ‘The Munich Settlement and International Law’ 33 American Journal of International Law 12-32. google scholar
73. Amalaraj P, ‘Kyiv says 'we are very near to really ending this war by a just and lasting peace' as Ukrainians react with horror to 'leaked report' on pro-Russian website claiming to reveal Trump's plan for a ceasefire by Easter’ DailyMail . google scholar
74. –––, ‘'Trump peace plan for Ukraine' is 'leaked': Talks with Putin, ceasefire by Easter and an end to Zelensky's NATO dream among details in report’ DailyMail . google scholar
75. Britannica TEoE, Munich Agreement (2024). google scholar
76. –––, Partitions of Poland (2024). google scholar
77. –––, Alaska Purchase (2025). google scholar
78. Collinson S, ‘US relations with Europe will never be the same after Trump’s call with Putin’ CNN . google scholar
79. Crilly R, ‘Trump sends threat to Putin to end war in Ukraine’ DailyMail . google scholar
80. Fox G, ‘A Legal Framework for a Russia-Ukraine Peace Agreement’ EJIL Talk . google scholar
81. Hasan A and Fumerton R, ‘Foundationalist Theories of Epistemic Justification’ The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . google scholar
82. Hernandez J, ‘Trump says he still wants to buy Greenland, suggests Canada could become a U.S. state’ NPR . google scholar
83. Kallek C, İmtiyazat, TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi (TDV İslâm Araştırmaları Merkezi 2000). google scholar
84. Kehl P, ‘Treaty or No Treaty? – International Law and the Purported Trump Peace Proposal for Ukraine’ EJIL Talk . google scholar
85. Orlova A, ‘WSJ: Trump Team Proposes 20-Year Freeze on Ukraine’s NATO Bid in Exchange for Peace’ Kyiv Post . google scholar
86. Özalp G, ‘ABD tek taraflı Ukrayna planını açıkladı, Avrupa şimdi ne yapacak?’ BBC Turkish . google scholar
87. Paparinskis M, ‘Crippling Compensation in the Law of State Responsibility’ EJIL Talk . google scholar
88. Pravda U, ‘Lukashenko says Russia and Ukraine could have agreed on "leasing" Crimea’ Ukrainska Pravda . google scholar
89. Reuters, ‘Ukraine offers neutrality in exchange for NATO-style security guarantees at Russia talks’ Reuters . google scholar
90. Rhoden-Paul A and Lukiv J, ‘Zelensky says no peace deal without Ukraine involvement’ BBC . google scholar
91. Triana HB, ‘A customary rule against unilateral economic sanctions of the nature of the Helms-Burton Act? Regarding another (potential) vote in the United Nations General Assembly against the “bloqueo”’ EJIL Talk . google scholar
92. Walker S, ‘Zelenskyy: Europe cannot guarantee Ukraine’s security without America’ Guardian . google scholar
93. Ward A, ‘Trump Promised to End the War in Ukraine. Now He Must Decide How’ The Wall Street Journal . google scholar
94. Yuan S, ‘Does China 'operate' Panama Canal, as Trump says?’ BBC . google scholar
95. Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russia Federation) (Provisional Measures) Order of 16 March 2022, ICJ Rep 211. google scholar
96. Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda) (Judgment) [2005] ICJ Rep 168. google scholar
97. Case Concerning Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo) (Judgment) [2012] ICJ Rep 324. google scholar
98. Case Concerning Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia) (Judgment) [1992] ICJ Rep 240. google scholar
99. Case Concerning Gabčíkovo- Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia) (Judgment) [1997] ICJ Rep 7. google scholar
100. Case of Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [2009] (ECHR). google scholar
101. Case of Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland [2024] (ECHR). google scholar
102. Corfu Channel Case (UK v Albania) (Merits) [1949] ICJ Rep 4. google scholar
103. Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (Federal Republic of Germany v. Iceland) (Judgment) [1973] ICJ Rep 4. google scholar
104. Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (United Kingdom and Northern Ireland v. Iceland) (Judgment) [1973] ICJ Rep 4. google scholar
105. Interpretation of Peace Treaties, (Advisory Opinion) [1950] ICJ Rep 65. google scholar
106. Interpretations of Peace Treaties (Oral Proceedings). google scholar
107. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) (Judgment) [1986] ICJ Rep 14. google scholar
108. Salem Case (United States v. Egypt) [1932] (R. Int’l Arb. Awards). google scholar
109. Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) (Preliminary Objections). google scholar
110. The Case of the SS Lotus, (France v Turkey) [1927] PCIJ No. 10. google scholar
111. Treaty of St. Germain (Yugoslav Liquidations) Case [1934] (Supreme Court of Austria). google scholar
112. Agreement between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of the Republic of Namibia with respect to Walvis Bay and the off-shore Islands, Walvis Bay, 28 February 1994 (entered into force on 1 March 1994) (1994). google scholar
113. Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Crimea on the Admission of the Republic of Crimea to the Russian Federation and the Formation of New Constituent Entities within the Russian Federation of March 18, 2014. google scholar
114. Commission IL, Chapter IV: Draft Code of Offences against the Peace and Security of Mankind (Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1951). google scholar
115. Convention regarding the Régime of Straits (adopted 20 July 1936, entered into force 9 November 1936) 173 LNTS 213. google scholar
116. Covenant of the League of Nations (adopted 28 June 1919, entered into force 10 January 1920). google scholar ILC, Report on the work of its eighteenth session (YILC, 1966). google scholar
117. Kellogg–Briand Pact (adopted 27 August 1928, entered into force 25 July 1929) 94 LNTS 57. google scholar
118. Public and Private International Law Bulletin, 45 (2): 459–495 494 google scholar
119. Could VCLT 52 Block a Peace Treaty Entailing Territory Transfer After the Ukraine-Russia War? Nacar, 2025 google scholar
120. Resolution 3314 (XXIX). Definition of Aggression (1974). google scholar
121. Text of the draft guidelines constituting the Guide to Practice on Reservations to Treaties, with commentaries, as provisionally adopted by the International Law Commission (2010). google scholar
122. The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (adopted 26 December 1933, entered into force 26 December 1934) 165 LNTS 19. google scholar
123. Treaty of Versailles (adopted 28 June 1919, entered into force 10 January 1920). google scholar
124. Treaty on Basic Relations Between Japan and the Republic of Korea (adopted 22 June 1965, entered into force 18 December 1965) 583 UNTS 44. google scholar
125. Treaty on Recognition of India’s Sovereignty over Goa, Daman, Diu, Dadra and Nagar Haveli (adopted 31 December 1974, entered into force 3 June 1975) (1975). google scholar
126. United Nations Conference on Law of Treaties First and second sessions Vienna, 26 March-24 May 1968 and 9 April-22 May 1969 (1971). google scholar
127. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (adopted 23 May 1969, entered into force 27 January 1980) 1115 UNTS 331. google scholar
128. Waldock CHMS, Report on the Law of Treaties, by Sir Humphrey Waldock, Special Rapporteur (1963). google scholar
129. –––, Draft Articles on the Effects of Armed Conflicts on Treaties, with Commentaries (2011). google scholar
130. –––, Draft Conclusions on Identification and Legal Consequences of Peremptory Norms of General International Law (jus cogens) with Commentaries (Yearbook of International Law Commission 2022). google scholar
131. –––, Draft Conclusions on Identification of Customary International Law with Commentaries (Yearbook of the International Law Commission 2018). google scholar