simulation comparisons

core uk position

• defending international law: a defender of the un charter system

  • (art 2(4)use of force

  • terrirorial integrity=respecting borders

  • and non recognition of land taken illegally

• a supporter of lawful collective self defence under article 51: countries are allowed to defend themselves including with help from others when attacked

• insisting on accountability: those responsible must face justice through courts like the icj and icc + victims recieiving reparations

• a pragmatist on diplomacy: uk supports talks but only diplomacy that does not reward agression

uks red lines

• the uk will not recognise any terrirotry taken by force or accept deals that lock in/ freeze unlawful gains

• the uk will not lift sanctions unless there is withdawal from ukraine and compliance with IL

• the uk will not treat the attackor and victim as morally or legally equal (no false equivalence)

strongest ally=france= coordinate support co sponsor

• explictly labels russias conduct as agression

• supports withdrawal, accountability and reparations

• endorses icc and icj authorty

  • the uk aligns closely with france in affirming that lasting peace cannot be built on the unlawful use of force or the erosion of the UN charter

    • if peace is based on breaking rules t may stop fighting temporarily but it eoncourages and passifys future agression making conflict more likely again

Greece, panama guyana slovenia (mostly support)

• a group that focuses strongly on international law and un initutions

• emphasises international humanitarian law, humanitrian access and un moinitoring

• supports icj/icc comliance

• defend ukraine sovereignty and borders (teriotrial integrity)

  • The uk supports their monitoring, accountability and humanitiran clauses

  • gentle reinforce that accountability strengthens peace, it does not undermine it

    • deters future violations by removing incentrives for agression, builds trust that agreements will be respected, adresses root causes instead of papering over them

    • peace resting on impunity increases the risk of renewed conflict

somalia

• strong humanitarian and legal framing

• clear condemnation of attacks on civllians

  • link somalias food security concerns to russias agression and black sea disruption

    • dirupted black sea which is a major global supplier or grain and fertaliser when ports blocked=exports interupted=global food prices rise and supplies less available

    • somia highly dependant on these already vulnerable due to conflict and climate shocks= reduced access to basic food deepening humanitarian need

    • russias actions are not a distant european conflict they have tangible hamuniatin consequences= hunger and instability

Pakistan= swing/catious state to persuade not confront

• stress diplomacy and ceasefire but avoid assigning blaim

• focus on neutrality mediation and avoiding escalation

• concerned accountability may disrupt talks

  • uk believes accountability and diplomacy are complementary not competing

    • pursuig justice doesnt block peacetalks it discourages further violations,builds trust in any neogtiated outcome and helps ensure peace is durable rather than temporary

  • icj has already issues binding provisional measures so states are not being asked to accept anything new or controversial - compliance is aminimum legal baseline required by IL not a poltical concession

    • this is about obeying existing legal obligations not raising the bar or changing the rules

  • “peace built on impunity (no responsibility) is not stability its postponement”

    • if wrongdoing is ignored or forigen without consequences the oeace that follows is not real or lasting; it delays future conflict because the underling injustice and incentives to use force remains

    • letting aggresors escape accountability may create a pause in fighting but it makes renewed violence more likely later

sierra leone= swing/catious state to persuade not confront

• symapthetic to ukraine but cautious

• strong humanitarian and reconstruction focus

  • 1. acklowedge post conflict experience

    • the uk recongises sierra leones hard won experience in post conflict recovery and reconcilliation. that experience shows that sustainable peace is built not only through silencing the guns but through accountability (adressing the causes of conflict) humanitirian protection and rebuilding insitutions

  • 2. stress ceasefire without withdrawal= frozen conflict learnt from past wars

    • ceasefire not including withdrawal of occupying army frces purely freezes the active fighting but leaves the illegal territorial control in place. this creates a frozen conflict where the war is pauses not ended

    • past conflicts show that when occupation is accepted/left unadressed often stores up instability allowing violence to resume later once conditions change= short term calm but long term instability not peace

    • consequences= the aggresor is rewarded for using force+ IL is weakened+ displaced people cannot safely return+ conflict is likely to restart once the balance of power shift

    • examples

      • ukraine post 2014 minsk agreement= reduced violence temporarily but left occupied territory in place= lack of withdraw and accountability contributed to the full scale 2022 invasion

      • nagorno-karabakh= 1992 ceasefire ended large scale fghting but didnt resolve ter control=repeated escalations and renewed war in 2020 and again in 2023

      • georgia (abkhazia and south ossetia)= ceasefires in 1990s halted fighting but left russian backed forces in control= remains unresolved and later reignited in 2008 entrenching terriorial division

  • therefore uk believes any path to eace must be grounded in respect for sov, withdrawal in line with IL and accountability for srious violations. these are not obstacles to eace for foudations on whch lasting recovery and reconstruction depends

oppenent to counter firmly, legally= china

• ceasefire without conditions

• rejects sanctions and arms trasnfers

• ‘depoliticised’ investigations

  • a ceasefire that entrenches unlawful occuptation violates the charter

    • charter forbids the aquisition of territory through unlawful force and requires respect for sovereignty+ territorial integrity so a ceaefire leaving occupation in place is not neutral or legal

  • sanctions are lawful responces to serious breaches of peremptory norms such as agression

    • under draft articles on responsibilty of state for international wrongful acts 2001 40-41 states must not reognise or assist situations created by such serious breaches+ may take lawful measures like sanctions to press compliance

    • sanctions are not punishment for its own sake or poltical retalaition- they are lawful responces required to uphold core international rules when gravely violated

  • investigations are legal not poltical when grpunded in icj icc mandates

    • they follow legal procedures and are limited to issues within the courts authority

    • theor aim is fact finding accountability and justice not advancing a particular countries poltical agenda

    • legal invesitgations under icj are about enforcing il not playing poltics

  • neutrility between agression and self defence is not impartiality it is abdiction of charter responsibility

    • pretending to be neutral when one side is clearly the agressor is not true impartiallity instead it is ignoring your obligations under the un charter to uphold IL

    • un charter=requiring state to oppose illegal use of force and defend sov so claiming neutrality in such case effectively condones aggression and undermines the rules that maintain international peace

    • failure to call out agression= failure of responsibility not fairness

russia

• minsk agreement

• mutual blame

• sanctions harm civillians

• negotiations without legal framing

  • minsk meant to end conflict failed due to rssias noncomplaicne with the terms eg failed to withdraw forces, stop support for armed groups or respect ukraines territoial integrity

    • ceasefire and agreements only work if all parties comply and russias non complaince turned the minsk accords into a temporary pause rather than a lasting resolution utimately allowing conflict to escalate again

    • peace agreements wont succeed when one side ignores obligations

  • icj ordered suspension of mil operations and was ignored

    • bidning legal isntruction under il ignoring it is a clear violation of il showing disregard to authority of icj

    • ciompliance with such orders is the minimum legal obligation not a poltical choice

    • courts order exist to protect sov and limit conflict so flouting undermines the rules that maintain int peace

  • humanitirian harm flows from agression actions not targetted sanctions with safeguards protections

    • agression causes death displacement disrution of food water medical supplies

    • well designed sanctions aim to pressure the agressor while minimising harm to civillians through munaitrian exemptions and safeguards

    • harm is a result of the attack not lawful measures used to enforce accountability

us trump plan= most dangerous for UK interests (must clearly oppose but diplomatically due to sesentivity)

• de facto terirroial recognition

• sanctions roll back

• amnesty for crimes

• nato non expansion imposed on ukraine

  • any defactor recognition of territory taken by force breachesUn prciniple of non recngotion of unlawful gains obligations so is legally unacceptable

  • amnesty for agression and war crimes violates jus cogens that forbid impunty for core international crimes

    • inpermissable as accountabilty is non negotiable under IL

  • ukraines security choices cannot be externally dictated and must be made by ukraine itself

    • limits on ukraines nato membership or other security choices are a matter of state sovereignty

  • rolling back sanctions weakens leverage over the aggressor

  • the uk cannot support any framework that trades terriorial integrity and accountability for expediancy (convenience)

uks conclusion

the uk believes peace in ukraine must be lawful accountable and durable because any peace built on agression today will invite greater instability tomorrow:

• undermines protection of smaller states globally=

  • If a powerful country can succeed in taking territory or acting aggressively without consequences, smaller or weaker states lose the security guarantees that international law and institutions are meant to provide

  • It sends a message that their sovereignty and borders are not reliably protected, making them more vulnerable to coercion or aggression in the future

• setting a dangerous precedent for future agressions=

  • Allowing unlawful actions to go unpunished normalises aggression.

  • Future aggressors may see that violating international law carries few real consequences, encouraging more conflicts or territorial seizures elsewhere.

  • Essentially, inaction now lowers the threshold for what is considered permissible behavior in the international system.

• essential for maintaning security council authority + credbility=

  • The Security Council’s legitimacy depends on its ability to enforce the UN Charter and respond to serious violations.

  • If states ignore rules without consequence, the Council is seen as ineffective or biased, which weakens its authority globally.

  • This reduces the Council’s capacity to prevent future conflicts, mediate disputes, and maintain international peace.