International Law in the Face of Russia’s Aggression in Ukraine: The View from Lviv

In the two years since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began, the fighting has caused widespread horror and devastation. Over 10,000 civilians have been killed and more than half a million people injured. Still millions of others are internally displaced, seeking refuge abroad, or are in dire need of humanitarian assistance. 

The idea of war – and how to prevent it – was a central concern when 51 nations came together to form the United Nations over seven decades ago. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine poses deep challenges to the international rules-based order and raises complex questions of international law, not only for Ukraine, but for nations around the world.

In partnership with the Ukrainian Association of International Law, which worked with other stakeholders such as the Ukrainian Bar Association, the American Society of International Law helped to convene a gathering of international lawyers in Lviv, Ukraine in December 2023. 

Lviv was home to three giants in the field of international law: Hersch Lauterpacht, Rafael Lemkin, and Louis Sohn. Lauterpacht developed the concept of crimes against humanity, Lemkin pioneered the term “genocide,” and pushed for the adoption of the U.N. Genocide Convention, and Sohn played a pivotal role in helping to conceptualize article 51 of the U.N. Charter on the right of self-defense. 

Many of those who gathered in Lviv are now sharing their reflections on the meeting in a Just Security symposium. Joining the show to discuss the symposium are four of its editors, Kateryna Busol, Olga Butkevych, Rebecca Hamilton, and Gregory Shaffer.  

Kateryna is a Ukrainian lawyer and an Associate Professor at the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy. Olga is President of the Ukrainian Association of International Law and Chaired Professor of Law at Kyiv’s National University of Taras Shevchenko. Rebecca is an Executive Editor at Just Security and a Professor of Law at American University, Washington College of Law. Greg is the Scott K Ginsburg Professor of International Law at Georgetown University Law Center and the President of the American Society of International Law. 

Show Notes:  

• Kateryna Busol (@KaterynaBusol)
• Olga Butkevych
• Rebecca Hamilton (@bechamilton)
• Gregory Shaffer (@gregorycshaffer) 
• Paras Shah (@pshah518) 
• Just Security’s symposium “International Law in the Face of Russia’s Aggression in Ukraine: The View from Lviv” 
• Patryk I. Labuda’s (@PILabuda) Just Security article “Accountability for Russian Imperialism in the ‘Global East’”
• Just Security’s International Law coverage
• Just Security’s Russia-Ukraine War coverage
• Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbe

Transcript

Paras Shah: Hello, and welcome to a special episode of the Just Security podcast. I’m your host, Paras Shah. 

In the two years since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began, the fighting has caused widespread horror and devastation. Over 10,000 civilians have been killed and more than half a million people have been injured. Still millions of others are internally displaced, seeking refuge abroad, or are in dire need of humanitarian assistance. 

The idea of war – and how to prevent it – was a central concern when 51 nations came together to form the United Nations over seven decades ago. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine poses deep challenges to the international rules-based order and raises complex questions of international law, not only for Ukraine, but for nations around the world.

In partnership with the Ukrainian Association of International Law, which worked with other stakeholders including the Ukrainian Bar Association, the American Society of International Law helped to convene a gathering of international lawyers in Lviv, Ukraine in December 2023. 

Lviv was home to three giants in the field of international law: Hersch Lauterpacht, Rafael Lemkin, and Louis Sohn. Lauterpacht developed the concept of crimes against humanity, Lemkin pioneered the term “genocide,” and pushed for the adoption of the U.N. Genocide Convention, and Sohn played a pivotal role in helping to conceptualize Article 51 of the U.N. Charter on the right of self-defense. 

Many of those who gathered in Lviv are now sharing their reflections on the meeting in a Just Security symposium. Joining the show to discuss the symposium are four of its editors, Kateryna Busol, Olga Butkevych, Rebecca Hamilton, and Gregory Shaffer. 

Kateryna is a Ukrainian lawyer and an Associate Professor at the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy. Olga is President of the Ukrainian Association of International Law and Chaired Professor of Law at Kyiv’s National University of Taras Shevchenko. Rebecca is an Executive Editor at Just Security and a Professor of Law at American University’s Washington College of Law. Greg is the Scott K. Ginsburg Professor of International Law at Georgetown University Law Center and the President of the American Society of International Law.

So, coming out of this convening in Lviv, what are some of the most urgent international law questions that are on people’s minds? And Kateryna, let's start with you.

Kateryna Busol: Well, the most urgent, I think, human issues are the assurance, the safety, ensure the safety, the security, that the loved ones are safe, and especially the kids. But then I think both the legal community and most importantly, the general public in Ukraine, are so keen on having the prosecution of the crime of aggression. Of course, the level of awareness about this differs. But this is a very strong demand for everybody in and across Ukraine. 

And to be brief, on behalf of survivors, both before the full-scale invasion and since the full-scale invasion, the discussion about reparations and urgent interim reparations has also been important. And I think it's a great work of Ukrainian civil society, human rights lawyers, and now the state to raise the awareness among the survivors. This justice is served not only through courts, and that medical support — a couple of counseling, psychological support — is something that they are not just entitled to have, but something that they can and should demand now already, parallel to the ordinary criminal justice proceedings domestically and internationally.  

Paras Shah: And, Olga, what's your take on that?

Olga Butkevych: I would say, maybe more generally here, because each conflict and, Russian-Ukrainian conflict and aggression against Ukraine revealed, the most general, the most difficult problems of international law, and even some gaps in international law. Some shortcomings of this system and all that was discussed during our meeting in Lviv. And the first thing is that the aggression against Russian Federation is not an exclusion and in historical plain here because it showed to the most difficult problems and challenges to international law. 

Second thing is that each time when a serious crisis appears in international relations and international law, there occur some doubts or new doubts in international law and its efficiency. International law today faces criticism and the lack of respect for it. And all that was discussed during our meetings, different meetings. But I think that the conclusion was rather optimistic that from each crisis, international law came out more strengthened and more humanistic. 

Paras Shah: Greg, from the United States, what's your perspective?

Gregory Shaffer: Yeah, Paras. So, there have been, just, I think, I put this in broader connection. I mean, I think the big issue is, how can international law be used to support Ukraine, be it through in terms of Russian accountability, be it in terms of sanctions, be in terms of finding, locating assets that can be used to help Ukraine? I mean, there's so many different issues. But what I really wanted to stress was that, you know, the point and the goal of organizing the meeting in Lviv between our two international law societies, one of the key goals was not only to jointly identify issues — and we identified 10 issues, you know, criminal and civil accountability, accountability across an ecosystem of accountability, the crime of aggression, sovereign immunity, arbitrary detention, sanctions, returning abducted children, reintegrating territories, social inclusion, and so forth — the point was not only to jointly identify these international law issues, but also, something that this podcast and the joint Just Security symposium represent. That is, to create collaborations over time between the participants at the Lviv meeting, in order to go into further detail and address new developments under international law and do whatever we can to help Ukraine and its struggle. 

Paras: Right, and we're so thrilled to be able to host the symposium and to do this podcast episode. Part of the question here is not only the black letter development of international law, but also the institutions that create and use it. Bec, we've seen a lot of Security Council paralysis. How should we think about that in this context?

Rebecca Hamilton: Thanks, Paras. And let me just start by echoing what Greg said about the collaboration. One of the most extraordinary things for me coming out of Lviv was all of the side conversations outside of the formal panels with our Ukrainian international law colleagues, to really get a more granular understanding of the incredible work that they have been doing for years and years, trying to use international law to actually deliver things that survivors on the ground need. 

But overlaying the entire conversation has to be this question of, well, how do you actually enforce international law? We have a lot of really good law. But at the end of the day, when push comes to shove, we have the institutional arrangements that we've got, and they came out of the post-World War II geopolitical order. And so, when you have a country like Russia that is flagrantly violating international law, and it's important to remind listeners, I think that we're not just talking about the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, but we can go back to Chechnya, to Georgia, to the annexation of Crimea. When a country that is doing that also has a veto on the UN Security Council, what do we do? This is, of course, not limited to Russia. 

And even though our convening was timed around the 75th anniversary of the Genocide Convention and the UN Declaration of Human Rights, it was also the case that at the same time that we were there, the US vetoed the first ceasefire resolution on Gaza. And so, all of this was playing out in the background. And the question becomes, well, what do you do? And I think one of the exciting conversations for all of us that were there and for the international law community going forward is, assuming we're not going to just abandon the UN, which I think would be a grave mistake, what are we going to do to enable our institutional arrangements to live up to the promises of the international law that we have? What are the creative initiatives that we can take on, short of reform, or short of amendment, to the UN Charter that can get us to the place that we need to be? And there's a lot of exciting ideas out there that are starting to be advanced by lawyers and by diplomats, the non-amendment based reform, so that when you have a situation like you have in Ukraine, the Security Council can become an enabler of international law rather than a barrier to it.

Paras: Right. That's such an important point. This is a time for creative solutions, and for creative lawyering. The first article that launches the symposium quotes a piece from a young Ukrainian lawyer, Maksym Vishchyk, about the role of international law in the face of aggression. And it's a sobering analysis, because that piece was written and published two years ago, when Russia initially launched its full-scale invasion. Two years have passed, the violence rages on, the fighting continues. What are the limits here of international law, and also, its potential to address the questions that Ukraine is facing?

Gregory: I mean, I'll be glad to jump in just with a big picture, but I really am interested also, Kateryna, Olga, and Bec, you know, your thoughts. But I mean, obviously, there are limits to international law. Power and law are always interrelated, and that especially holds true at the international level. As Bec just noted, Russia has veto powers and P5 have veto powers in the Security Council. To go further, Russia also has nuclear weapons, unlike Ukraine, that it brandishes threats. Russia has a huge landmass and valuable natural resources, which provide it with leverage. It has a huge population and an authoritarian regime that can sacrifice massive numbers of soldiers on the front. 

But nonetheless, I don't think, I think international law and justice are important, because they always serve, and here they serve the weaker power. They serve Ukraine, because justice in international law can be used to put pressure on Russia, both economically and morally. Russia has paid costs economically and morally. And just to give a couple of examples that really were unimaginable before the conflict, a Russian judge has been removed from representation on the International Court of Justice. That never happened in the entire history since the UN Charter. Russia has been removed from the Human Rights Council, right? Its legitimacy is under serious challenge, you know? It faced, you know, massive votes in opposition to Russia's war of aggression in the UN General Assembly. Putin has to think hard about traveling internationally for the rest of his life. 

So that, those, we are all disappointed with international law, that it can't be more effective immediately. But over the long run, this has not been a success for Putin's regime, and international law is and can and will continue to be used to support Ukraine and its efforts.

Olga: If I may, to continue in this context, I would say that maybe it's not even just a problem of international law, that the reaction of international community actually was insufficient — reaction of international community to the Russian aggression was insufficient in 2014, as it was an insufficient to the aggression of Russia against Georgia, to the activity of Russia in Syria and so on. So that's maybe not only about international law. That's about this policy of appeasement of aggression, aggressor. 

And eventually, this policy of appeasement of aggressor led in 2022 to the large-scale invasion in Ukraine and all these war crimes, crimes against humanity, which you face today in Ukraine. But is that international law that is a problem, I would ask, because in recent decades, many excellent fundamental rules were formed, were established, in international law, such as prohibition of aggression, prohibition of the use of force, respect for the status of sovereignty, respect for territorial integrity, a set of rules in the international criminal law, in international humanitarian law, et cetera. Is there a need to completely to change international law? I would say no, but the reason needs to make these rules workable, to make to rules to work, and to be implemented, to be respected by the state. And I think that in many — also I will refer to our summit and forum in Lviv, during many roundtables, all different aspects of international law and international relations were discussed, and the main idea was how to make these rules to work, to be implemented, to be respected, and to be efficient. 

Kateryna: If I may, I'd pick up on Olga’s discussion of not necessarily narrowly legal prerequisites and reasons for the poor reaction to Russia's aggression. Certain reasons are for sure legal — the limited ICC’s jurisdiction, for instance, to try Russia's aggression — but we should ask ourselves why the jurisdiction has been so limited in the first place. And second, why two years into the full scale invasion, and 10 years since the beginning of the aggression, we still haven't done better with the reform of the ICC regime, expanding the jurisdiction over foreign international crimes equally the way it's supported among other professionals by, for instance, Professor Claus Kress, who is the Special Adviser of the ICC Prosecutor on the Crime of Aggression. 

But I'd really like to stress on more intangible human undercurrents of these limitations. I think that Russia's aggression has really showed how little we know, and how little we engage, with traumatic histories across the globe. Ukraine has not really engaged much or considered much how, for instance, different Latin American nations have reckoned with the military regimes that they have been under — how that impacts their voting at the General Assembly, for instance, or their support for the creation of a tribunal to try Russia's aggression, and a particular mode of that tribunal. 

In the same way, we have seen how the world does not really — how it takes a while for the world to embrace the discussion that Russia has been and in many aspects remains an empire, and how it nourishes not just actions, but the rationale of the aggression and of particular atrocities. The UN Commission of Inquiry has expressly stated, I think, two crucial things. First, as the thing both Olga and Rebecca have mentioned, that Russia has not been held accountable for its atrocities in Georgia, in Moldova, in Syria and during the first phase of Ukraine war, and therefore, it has emboldened the further atrocities and the imperial thinking. And second, the UN Commission of Inquiry also has stated that there are such wider geopolitical dimensions, historical dimensions, that have to be addressed both on behalf of Ukraine, but also on behalf of the international community. 

So, I think not just as lawyers, but just as citizens, as people who enjoy not just civil liberties and rights, but that we also have a certain responsibility for having them, we really should try and educate ourselves more on how colonial and imperial undercurrents and reverberations are still there, and how they impact both the political, the legal, and just the wider public’s decision making. And from there, I think we can be a bit more empathetic and nuanced in how we proposed the next steps, including in the domain of international law.

Rebecca: Paras, let me just add, I think what Kateryna was saying is one hundred percent on the mark in terms of understanding the different historical legacies that all of the different nations in the international community are bringing to this moment in time, right? We can't understand how different nations are voting at the UN General Assembly without understanding that background. 

But the other piece of this that I think has been interesting in Ukraine is law is one thing, but it doesn't come out of nowhere. And to get any shift in legal understanding, we need a shift in social understanding. One of the things that Ukrainians’ civil society and government have been extraordinary at is articulating the case for why aggression is truly an international crime that deserves prosecution. I think for the longest time, international lawyers had talked about atrocity crimes as genocide, war crimes against humanity, and that was where the sentence stopped. I think the work that is being done by bringing out the voices of survivors of aggression, but also the harms that are being done to soldiers on both sides that are forced into this illegal war, is really helping to lay that groundwork for elevating aggression to its proper place in the canon of core international crimes. And that is something that I'm hoping international war will continue to carry forward beyond this current conflict. 

Paras: Yeah, I wanted to pick up on that point that Kateryna made about learning from other nations with a history of military regimes, and that have faced a history of violence. How can Ukraine better engage with countries in the Global South?

Kateryna: Well, I can start here. And I think here, we should really decipher all the layers behind the word Ukraine — that could be the government, that could be the academic community, that could be the civil society — and the same, of course, with the partners in the so-called Global South, although I find the term very misleading.

I think it has been exceptional that, for instance, quite a few initiatives documenting war crimes in Ukraine have invited journalists from Latin American states, from the African states, and from Southeast Asia to come and first experience the aura of Ukraine on the ground. Second, to visit the areas where the grain that has been so painstakingly tended to by Ukrainian farmers, to see how they were rescuing the remnants of the grain and agricultural products, while Russia was bombing and in other ways affecting the fields of Ukraine. So, I think connecting on the human level, on the level of civil society and among the academics in different fields, has been happening, and it has been positive. Later on, for instance, the Reckoning Project, one of the initiatives that documents conflict-related crimes in Ukraine, has catalyzed the meetings of such journalists from the Global South nations with President Zelenskyy. So, I think what's important is to establish the human connection, the feeling of the aura, of the people, of the atmosphere here in Ukraine, to really see that we really share that pain first. 

Second, I think Ukraine is realizing increasingly now, and the Prosecutor General was presented in Nuremberg in Courtroom 600 to the US Helsinki Commission. And he was referring to the engagement with the Global South nations, and how much there is to learn. I would just add specifically, I think, on what. The Global South nations have had an immense experience in transitional justice — individual reparations, domestic prosecutions of conflict related crimes. There is such a richness of experience that we could learn. The whole treaty law and jurisprudence, for instance, on enforced disappearances, the crime which is unfortunately topical for Ukraine now or on the crime of torture, largely came from the Global South, from Argentina, from Chile. So, there is much room to learn. 

And just to finalize with a specific example on how sometimes the civil society and academics do that quicker than the governments and better. For instance, the Association of Ukrainian Women Lawyers, JurFem, together with a network of survivors of conflict-related sexual violence, and certain governmental officials responsible for introducing individual reparations for atrocity victims in Ukraine, they visited Colombia, the country that has been exceptional with a special jurisdiction for peace, and how they merge different aspects of prosecutions — prosecutions of under investigated, under prosecuted crimes, and ensuring reparations not 10 years after, but as soon as possible. So, the learning is happening. We were just hoping that it will translate gradually also into the more nuanced voting, including in the UN General Assembly,

Olga: Maybe just a few words to add to what Kateryna has said. Ukraine has become a victim of aggression, and not only the aggression, but of really grave violations of international law — war crimes, crimes against humanity. Today, many people say that, maybe we can see victims of, elements of genocide here. And what I would like to say that for the first time in history in Ukraine, it will be established a Museum of Genocides — Museum of Genocides, because it is a task of Ukraine to show the gravity of this crime, and to show that it’s not only about these or that genocide, that is, about different nations, different peoples.  

And the Museum of Genocides will be established in Odesa, and it will be more international-legal than just historical or ethnic. It will show different elements, different effects, different situations of crimes against humanity in different parts of world — in Africa, in Latin America, sure, in Europe or in Asia. So, the Museum of Genocides, in plural, will combine different evidences from all parts of the world, which suffered from this crime.

Gregory: Paras, may I just add one last comment on the Global South point, which is, you know, clearly the Global South is a political term. It's a political term which was developed as a form of resistance to colonialism, neocolonialism, and new forms of empire, right? And a central principle of Global South countries is to defend their sovereign independence in the face of great powers, in the face of colonial powers. So, in that sense, Ukraine is much more of a Global South country, obviously, than Russia. Russia is a colonial power, it's asserting sort of a revisionist vision of reclaiming territory, reclaiming its empire, in the doing so through a war of aggression. And so, I think that's just a very central point to recall, and to put forward that this really is a fundamental Global South principle that is at stake. 

Kateryna: I would really like us to try and, yeah, develop the nuance that we are now doing here, in terms of — there is an emergent scholarship speaking how, of course, this dichotomy between the Global North and Global South a) is not as one dimensional, and b) there is a group of states, like the so- called former Warsaw Pact states, essentially the states from Central and Eastern Europe, who are in a particular positioning because they on the one hand, as Olga, as Greg, have been saying, do have many traces of classical colonies on the one hand. On the other hand, their relationship with former empires like the Russian Empire, or the Austro-Hungarian Empire, is a little bit different. More leaders of those nations were involved in the imperial leadership, for instance, and the religious dynamics have been a little bit different than in other classical Global South colonies. But still, there are so many dimensions that allow us to speak about the colonial and Imperial histories of those nations. And I think what's crucial here, and what's happening increasingly more now, is that there are more scholarly voices from these regions. Like for instance, the analysis from Yulia Loffe, who's a Ukrainian scholar teaching at UCL, or Patryk Labuda, a Polish scholar who explained this not one dimensionality, especially for the countries from Eastern and Central Europe. 

And the second point, which I would want to make is that I think every country that has and every people that has been affected by aggression and mass atrocities, that yes, they are victims, but they also are agents of change. Again, we have seen what immense, impressive domestic jurisprudence and transitional justice mechanisms the Latin American countries have developed. Ukraine in this case also can be within the country that recognizes that it's affected by aggression, but it's also an agent of change. Hopefully, again, Ukraine could just show how urgent interim reparations for atrocity victims can and should be implemented, and then make them in warfare. For the crime of aggression, it's crucial for Ukraine. And here, I probably speak more, at least as of now, about the civil society and academics, and then hopefully, also the government, that Ukraine supports the two-pronged approach for creating the special tribunal to hold the Russia’s and Belarus leadership accountable, but also for catalyzing the larger change and the reform of the Rome Statute regime. And I think, if anything, this will support Ukraine's positioning that it's really fighting for justice, not one-time justice only for itself. It recognizes that the wider change in the global international criminal justice infrastructure is needed and therefore, I think this two-pronged approach will more likely be attractive to the partners from the Global South. And I'm hoping that, again, the way the Ukrainian academic community and civil society advocate for such a nuanced two-pronged approach, that way it will soon be also supported by the government, 

Rebecca: This dual casting of victims as both victims, but also agents of change, is really important for us not to lose sight of, and we see it in every atrocity situation ever. Starting with, you know, again back to thinking of the international lawyers who have the connection with Lviv, if you think about Lemkin, if you think about Lauterpacht, victims of atrocities deeply personally affected, did not turn away from international law, but turned to it, saw the problems, saw the gaps, were frustrated, and worked to change it. And I think that that every conflict brings that out. And that is in some ways, you know, I wish it wasn't the case — we’re already asking too much of the people who are the most directly affected by atrocities. But nonetheless, they are the people, because of the lived experience of going through it, can really see with clarity where the deficits are, and what needs to change. And I think that the more that we can do this sort of coalition building across borders of people that have had these similar experiences, the stronger and stronger is the movement to the kind of change and reform that we need.

Paras Shah: Yeah, Patryk has a very impressive article in Just Security where he talks about the counter-hegemonic potential of international law. And I think it's addressing many of the points that you all are raising. We'll link to it in the show notes. Listeners should definitely give it a read. 

As we look at the learnings from this convening that was held in Lviv, where so many giants of international law have lived and spent time and we think about the work that Hersch Lauterpacht has done and Raphael Lemkin have done to create crimes against humanity and the crime of genocide — looking forward, where do we go from here? What are the concrete steps that we should be thinking about, heading out of this discussion?

Olga: Well, this conflict — maybe as any big, any serious conflict — revealed really different and really many, many problems in different domains, in different fields of our life. So, we would like to maybe to formulate some propositions, because these are problems within protection of environment, protection of flora and fauna during our conflict. And now, I think that — and I agree with everybody here that Ukraine, as part of this conflict, is a victim of this conflict. It should not act as a victim but should act as an agent of change. And now we are working over new documents on protection of animals during armed conflicts. Also, we are working over new approaches of protection of cultural heritage during armed conflicts because — not to treat cultural property just as a property, just as a public property, but as a part of common heritage of humankind. Also, there is need to strengthen the crime of ecocide in the statute of the International Criminal Court and to strengthen this crime in international law, the strength and accountability for this crime. 

Maybe the most difficult question, the most difficult problem, is the problem of implementation of, realization of international law — of making more workable, making all these rules which are existing now, to make them workable. There is a need to adopt an international legal instrument which would prohibit international economic aggression, because this conflict in Ukraine showed that the conflict is not only a military one. It started to be military only in 2014. Before that, there are different so-called economic trade wars waged by Russia against Ukraine, and also the reasoning to introduce this system of protection of economic interests of different states. And what many lawyers say now that this conflict showed to be not only military one, not only armed conflict — that is, a kind of hybrid war, a kind of hybrid conflict which attaches all domains, all fields of our life, and the response to hybrid conflict should be also multi-vector. It would contain struggle with cyber-attacks, with terrorist attacks, with economical pressure, with diplomatic pressure, political pressure, et cetera. So, the response to hybrid conflict should be also multi-vector, also should be waged in different ways. So, we have, we have plenty of tasks, and we have plenty of tasks and we implement some ideas in these domains — in all these domains. 

Kateryna: Paras you mentioned lots Hersch Lauterpacht and Raphael Lemkin, and of course, their connection to Lviv. and I really love Philippe Sands’ note about them, that during the utmost cruelty, these two lawyers managed not just to curl up and weep, they managed to transform this trauma into something productive. And I'm hoping that we, on an individual level, on the level of our communities, states and our international community, manage to do the same, to reflect constructively.  

I really think that the notion of prevention has not been developed enough in international law, and it's so poignant that the very convention on the crime of genocide is also the convention on the prevention of this crime. Prevention is a crucial component of transitional justice, and the one on which we have the least clarity. And I find it quite symbolic that the first Special Rapporteur on Transitional Justice, Professor Pablo de Greiff, is on the UN Commission of Inquiry. And to me, it's an indication, kind of, the guidance, both again to the international community and to Ukraine itself, that we really should reckon with this aggression and with similar situations with a preventive thinking, and not with a reflective post-factum thinking.

And also, because I'm a Ukrainian lawyer, and of course, I'm a Ukrainian first and foremost, I think it's very important for us as a people, as a scholarly, as a legal community, to see what issues this armed conflict and the way we address it have highlighted within us. We see now an enormous amount of the LGBTQI persons joining the armed service in Ukraine, fighting for their country. And we know that these people don't have the rights that they have to have within their country. And I'm glad to see that Ukrainian Ministry of Justice is developing a draft law on civil partnerships for Ukrainian gay and lesbian persons. So, I'm really hoping that also this armed conflict showing the enormous amount not just of women, but of female survivors of Russia's war crimes, who have been through the worst in Russia’s detention, surviving torture and sexual violence, these women join the army and fight for the country.  

And that should be not just on the battlefield. Women should be there at all levels of state governance, during the peace negotiations, during building in Ukraine, in conflict and post-conflict. And, of course, all male panels or all male delegations, hopefully, it's something that Ukraine gradually goes away from. So, we have an enormous, also, list of tasks domestically to do, and in a way the armed conflict has become a catalyst of these overdue human rights reforms and transformations, but they're happening. And it's so great to see that again, Ukrainian civil society and the wider public eye are embracing these much-needed transformations.

Rebecca: Kateryna, I love that framing and that hopeful take on what this can do. I think that in addition to international law being very bad at prevention comparatively, the other thing that we're really bad at as an international law community — and this extends beyond international law — but is following through after the initial moment of crisis.  

So, we see this routinely in in journalistic coverage. You get a huge amount of coverage at the moment with the invasion, and then it lessens steadily over time. And you get a little peek again every time that there's an anniversary. But it's very hard to keep minds focused on what is an ongoing conflict as other crises emerge. I do think that one of the ways through that is this building of relationships between colleagues across different areas, because it's one thing to be able to turn away from a crisis when it's no longer in the headlines if you don't know anybody who is themselves directly affected by the conflict. It is impossible to do that when you have working relationships with people who are dealing day in and day out with the crisis at hand. And so, I think the more that we can do to invest in those relationships across conflict and non-conflict affected areas, the better we are going to be at staying the long haul that is really needed in order for, again, international law to live up to its potential.

Gregory: I'd say those were very powerful remarks from Olga, Kateryna and Bec in terms of just the role of not only transforming international law and really focusing on you know, the most important aspect, which is to prevent the horror of war, but also transforming societies, which Kateryna, you've talked about so powerfully, because they're related, you know? Who is it within societies who represent states within international institutions? And the fact that we have three very powerful women on this podcast, I couldn't be more honored to be the last leg.

Paras: This has been such a rich and important discussion. Thank you so much, Olga, Kateryna, Bec, Greg, for joining the show. We'll be sure to continue to highlight your voices and the voices of other colleagues in the symposium on Just Security’s pages. Thank you again.

Gregory: Thank you, Paras. You guys are wonderful.

Kateryna: Thank you very much, dear colleagues. 

Olga: Thank you. 

Rebecca: Thank you so much, Paras. That was wonderful, everyone.

Paras: This episode was hosted and produced by me, Paras Shah, with help from Clara Apt. 

Special thanks to our guests Kateryna Busol, Olga Butkevych, Rebecca Hamilton, and Gregory Shaffer, along with Tess Bridgeman, Megan Corrarino, Michael Cooper, and Svitlana Starosvit. 

You can read all of Just Security’s coverage of international law, including the symposium International Law in the Face of Russia’s Aggression in Ukraine: The View from Lviv, on our website. If you enjoyed this episode, please give us a five star rating on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen.