On February 24th, 2025, the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) adopted its first resolution on the matter. Resolution 2774 was adopted with ten votes in favour (Algeria, China, Guyana, Pakistan, Panama, Russia, South Korea, Sierra Leone, Somalia, United States of America) and five abstentions (Denmark, France, Greece, Slovenia, United Kingdom). At first glance, the resolution could be considered promising as it urges for a “lasting peace”. It could indicate that the impasse at the Security Council has been overcome, thus allowing the United Nation’s principal organ in matters of peace and security to assume its functions vis-a-vis the ongoing war. However, the resolution, and particularly its omissions, pose a serious threat to Ukraine, European security, and international law as a whole.
Resolution 2774 and its Omissions
Resolution 2774 can probably enter a contest for the shortest resolution ever adopted by the UNSC. It is composed of only two preambles and one operative clause reading:
“1. Implores a swift end to the conflict and further urges a lasting peace between Ukraine and the Russian Federation.”
The United States had proposed the brief resolution in the UNSC (S/2025/112), manifesting its change in policy towards Russian aggression. Whereas the USA considered itself an ardent supporter of Ukraine during the Biden Administration, the Trump Administration is pushing Ukraine to close a deal with Russia and is seeking compensation for its past support to Ukraine through preferential access to natural resources in Ukraine.
France and the United Kingdom, alongside other European members of the UNSC, warned against the adoption of the resolution in the proposed length. Nonetheless, amendment S/2025/114 to label the Russian aggression as such did not acquire the necessary quorum of nine votes (see here minute 25:05). Amendments S/2025/115 and S/2025/116 to assert the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine and call for a “just” and “comprehensive” peace were vetoed by Russia (see here minute 26:45 and 29:00). All European states abstained from the final vote. France and the UK did not exercise their veto power (which both have not used since 1989).
Resolution 2774’s omissions are particularly apparent against the backdrop of the two United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolutions adopted on the same day within the framework of its Eleventh Emergency Special Session. Resolutions ES-11/7 (introduced by Ukraine and the European Union) and ES-11/8 (introduced by the USA) likewise urge for „lasting peace“. However, they add the important elements of “just“ and “comprehensive” as integral characteristics of a peace between Ukraine and Russia. Moreover, the UNGA’s resolutions highlight its commitment to the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, which are core elements of Art. 2 of the UN Charter. In addition, they label the conflict as the “full-scale invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation” in contrast to the term “Russian Federation-Ukraine conflict” used by the UNSC. These additions reflect the amendments that the European states had put forward both in the UNSC and to UNGA resolution ES-11/8. However, Russia was able to block these amendments in the UNSC, whereas they achieved a majority in the UNGA thus changing the USA’s draft resolution. After the amendments were adopted in the UNGA, the USA abstained from the vote on ES-11/8.
Taking the differences between the UNSC and UNGA resolutions into account, the ambassador of Panama to the UNSC aptly stated that resolution 2774’s “silence speaks more eloquently than its words”.
The Detrimental Effect of Equidistance on Ukraine and International Law
Nonetheless, Panama voted in favour of the resolution in the UNSC. Likewise, the UNGA’s resolutions received only 93 votes in favour, far less in comparison to the 141 votes a similar resolution had received on the war’s first anniversary (ES-11/6). In particular, the group of abstentions grew significantly to 65, including states that had previously supported the resolutions condemning the Russian aggression (inter alia Argentina, Costa Rica, Honduras, Malawi, Oman, Panama, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia).
The voting and resolutions of February 24th, 2025, show that the tides are turning at the UN. First, and foremost, this has dire implications for Ukraine. Ukraine is being subjected to significant pressure by the USA and Russia to accept a deal entailing an indefinite occupation of significant parts of its territories through Russia. Ever since the Russian “annexation” of four Ukrainian regions in 2022 (which was condemned and deemed illegal by UNGA Resolution ES-11/4), Ukraine has affirmed time and again that it will not succumb to the Russian aggression and denied transferring territory to appease the aggressor. In this principled position, which is rooted in the most elementary norms of international law, Ukraine could rely on the United Nations. Although the Russian veto blocked meaningful action in the UNSC, the UNGA affirmed the Ukrainian position and asserted the primacy of international law in resolving the war.
Now, the UNSC’s resolution severely undermines this position. By framing the situation as the “Russian Federation-Ukraine conflict“ and omitting any reference to the territorial integrity of Ukraine as established in Art. 2 of the UN Charter, the resolution sheds a different light on the principled Ukrainian position. From the equidistant approach adopted in Resolution 2774, it seems less reasonable for Ukraine to insist in the full restoration of its international borders. This will strengthen the argument advanced by the Trump administration and Russia that the restoration of Ukraine’s borders is “unrealistic” and should, therefore, be taken off the table. Resolution 2774 can, therefore, play a crucial part in paving the way for a “peace deal” that severely undermines Ukrainian sovereignty and rewards Russian aggression.
The Resolution likewise sends a fatal signal to the importance of international law. Russia’s aggression severely violates Art. 2 para. 4 UN Charter. However, Russia was able to block any enforcement measures by the UN throughout the last three years with its veto and continue its aggression. This limited effect of the prohibition of the use of force vis-a-vis the permanent members of the UNSC has been a long-standing grievance of the entire UN system. Yet, instead of being passive with regard to the violation of Art. 2 para. 4 UN Charter by a permanent member (like the UNSC has been on multiple occasions in the past), Resolution 2774 legitimizes the Russian use of force to a certain extent. By situating the use of force by Russia and Ukrainian self-defense in the broader context of the “Russian Federation-Ukraine conflict”, the UNSC equates illegal with legal measures. From the perspective of the UNSC, the category of legal or illegal use of force is irrelevant to the resolution of this conflict. This distortion bestows the Russian aggression with certain legitimacy.
Resolution 2774: Only the First Step?
Moreover, by blending illegal and legal behaviour, the UNSC has signalled a certain indifference to the role of international law in resolving the war. If peace is understood as the absence of active hostilities, peace can be achieved through an armistice that “freezes” the war indefinitely on the current battle lines. However, such a “peace” would ignore one of the most foundational principles of international law that territory shall not be transferred by forceful means. A “peace deal” that does not take into account whether one of the states aggressed the other thus serves as a blueprint for other states with expansive ambitions.
Resolution 2774 does not propose such a peace deal, and even the USA affirmed that the resolution was only a first step in the process. However, it is not unlikely that Russia and the USA will seek a resolution in the UNSC that confirms a “peace deal” between Ukraine that involves significant territorial concessions by Ukraine and no accountability for Russia and its officials for the horrendous damage caused to the Ukrainian population. As others have discussed on this blog (here and here), a treaty between Russia and Ukraine that involves territorial concessions faces serious legal hurdles. Particularly, Art. 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) affirms that treaties will be 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.” However, some argue that such a defect can be “cured” by a UNSC resolution, and it could well be the case that Russia and the USA will pursue the approval of a “peace deal” forced upon Ukraine. Building on and inspired by Resolution 2774, a future resolution could, therefore, approve a “peace deal” that legalizes the Russian conquest of Ukrainian territory. This would arguably be the inversion of the UNSC’s charter role to maintain international peace and security (Art. 24 UN Charter) and illegal.
The UNSC is certainly bound by the principles enshrined in Art. 2 UN Charter, considering that its chapeau reads, “The Organization and its Members … shall act in accordance with the following Principles” (see Peters, para. 80-89). This inhibits the UNSC from undermining these principles. “Curing” an invalid peace treaty in terms of Art. 52 VCLT to legalize a forceful, and thus, illegal annexation would fundamentally undermine the principles of sovereignty and non-use of force enshrined in Art. 2 UN Charter.
If such a draft resolution were presented to the UNSC, the other UNSC members must uphold the principles of international law and deny UNSC approval to a “deal”. Such approval would set a precedent for future territorial conquests and, therefore, uproot international law. Many of the current non-permanent members (including Pakistan and Panama) affirmed that the resolution of the war must be in line with international law. It will therefore be upon them to vote against such a resolution – or, if push comes to shove, for France or the UK to veto such an endeavour.
