On Sovereignty, Consent, and the Rule of Law in Donetsk and Luhansk
If sovereignty and territorial integrity lie at the centre of the war, could an agreed settlement create independent, self-governing entities in Donetsk and Luhansk, outside the jurisdiction of both Russia and Ukraine? For Ukraine, this would mean voluntarily relinquishing sovereignty over territory that international law recognizes as its own. Russia’s withdrawal of its annexation claims would not be an equivalent concession. Any such proposal must therefore explain how Ukraine could freely consent to that loss and how affected residents, including those displaced by the war, could have a meaningful voice in determining their future. Nor could independence be secured merely by declaring the territories self-governing. Their institutions would need to uphold the law, protect residents from violence and arbitrary detention, and provide a means to challenge abuses of power. They would also need to govern without coercive control from either neighbouring state. Otherwise, sovereignty could become a name for dependence under another power.
A change in sovereignty could not become a peace settlement merely because it brought the fighting to a halt. Ukraine would have to decide freely and lawfully whether to accept the loss of territory, while current and displaced residents would need a meaningful voice in shaping what followed. Any new institutions would have to protect them in practice, without becoming instruments of control by a neighbouring state. Independence, if it were ever agreed, would be a beginning of that responsibility rather than proof that it had been fulfilled.