PILPG Ukraine Drafting Notes: Guarantors

Guarantors

Guarantors may play a critical role in ensuring the credibility and implementation of the peace agreement, if appropriate obligations in the event of non-compliance are established.  Their involvement could provide security assurances, facilitate compliance, and support Ukraine’s post-conflict recovery.  Several key considerations are usually agreed upon when determining the involvement of guarantors to a peace agreement:

• Selection of Guarantors:  The choice of guarantors may include both global powers and neutral states to balance influence with impartiality. 

• Scope of Guarantees:  Guarantors may provide commitments to uphold Ukraine’s territorial integrity, oversee demilitarization, and ensure the implementation of agreed security measures. 

• Mechanisms for Enforcement:  Protocols for addressing violations of the agreement could be established, including diplomatic, economic, or military measures.  Clearly defined enforcement mechanisms may prevent disputes from escalating and ensure accountability for non-compliance.

• Coordination with Existing Frameworks:  Guarantor arrangements may be designed to complement existing security frameworks, such as NATO or OSCE, to avoid overlaps and ensure consistency with broader international efforts.  This integration can enhance the overall stability of the region.

• Long-Term Engagement:  Guarantors may also commit to supporting Ukraine’s long-term recovery through economic aid, institution-building, and integration into international systems.  Such commitments can help reinforce the peace agreement and contribute to sustainable development.

Selection of Guarantors

• NATO member states:  NATO member states, particularly the US, could serve as guarantors, leveraging their military and economic strength to enforce compliance.  This option provides a robust deterrent against future violations and reassures Ukraine of strong security guarantees.  However, it may provoke resistance from Russia, as NATO’s involvement could be perceived as escalating tensions or encroaching on its sphere of influence.  With the political situation in the US, it is also unlikely that there would be political support in sending any US troops to Ukraine. 

• Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE):  The OSCE’s involvement as a guarantor offers a multilateral framework with established mechanisms for monitoring and conflict resolution.  However, OSCE’s earlier missions in the region have been unsuccessful at preventing further conflict in the past.  Russia’s participation in OSCE can also be viewed as making the organization biased. 

• European States – EU and UK:  European powers could act as guarantors, providing regional expertise and a vested interest in stabilizing Ukraine.  The EU’s economic and institutional capabilities, combined with the UK’s strategic influence, could ensure effective support and enforcement.  However, European actors to date have been hesitant to take swift and decisive actions, which may lead to insufficient responses to non-compliance. 

• Neutral States – Turkey, India, Indonesia, Brazil:  Involving neutral states as guarantors could provide a balanced, less confrontational option.  These countries may be viewed as impartial mediators, fostering trust between the parties.  Their inclusion could also enhance global legitimacy and encourage broader international support.  However, their limited enforcement capacity and lack of direct stakes in the conflict might reduce their ability to respond decisively to violations.

Scope of Guarantees

Defining the extent of guarantors’ responsibilities is critical for clarity and effectiveness.

• Security Commitments Only:  Guarantors could focus solely on ensuring compliance with security-related measures, such as troop withdrawals, demilitarization, and border monitoring.  This narrow scope reduces complexity and allows guarantors to concentrate on immediate security issues.  However, it may leave gaps in addressing broader political or economic challenges critical for sustained peace.

• Comprehensive Guarantees:  Guarantors could take on broader responsibilities, including upholding Ukraine’s territorial integrity, supporting reconstruction, and mediating future disputes.  This approach offers a holistic framework for stabilizing the region but risks overburdening guarantors and complicating enforcement if their commitments are stretched too thin.

• Conditional Guarantees:  Guarantees could be tied to specific milestones, such as the completion of disarmament or the establishment of transitional governance.  This phased approach aligns guarantees with progress in implementing the agreement, providing flexibility and accountability.  However, disputes over meeting conditions could delay implementation or lead to partial guarantees.

Mechanisms for Enforcement

• Diplomatic Responses:  Guarantors could commit to initiating coordinated diplomatic actions, such as issuing joint condemnations or leveraging their influence in international forums, to address violations.  This approach avoids escalation but may be insufficient to deter or resolve serious breaches.

• Economic Sanctions:  Guarantors could enforce penalties such as sanctions or trade restrictions against parties violating the agreement.  This option provides a tangible consequence for non-compliance while avoiding military escalation.  However, sanctions may take time to have an effect and be insufficient to stop non-compliance or renewed hostilities.

• Military Measures:  Guarantors could agree to provide a collective military response, such as peacekeeping forces or defensive support for Ukraine, in the event of major violations.  This option offers the strongest deterrent but risks escalating conflicts, particularly if Russia perceives these actions as aggressive.

Coordination with Existing Frameworks

• Alignment with NATO:  Guarantor arrangements could complement NATO’s existing commitments to European security, ensuring consistency and leveraging NATO’s resources.  This enhances coordination but may provoke Russian opposition, particularly if perceived as a NATO expansion effort.

• Integration with OSCE:  Guarantors could work through the OSCE to monitor compliance and facilitate dialogue.  The OSCE’s experience in conflict resolution could add credibility and reduce duplication.  However, reliance on a multilateral institution may slow decision-making and limit the scope of enforcement options.

• Independent Guarantor Framework:  Creating a standalone mechanism for guarantors to coordinate enforcement and implementation avoids overlap with other frameworks, allowing for tailored approaches.  However, this may require significant resources and effort to establish, potentially delaying implementation.

Long-Term Engagement

• Short-Term Engagement Only:  Guarantors could focus on immediate implementation and withdraw after initial benchmarks are achieved.  This reduces long-term obligations and minimizes external influence over Ukraine’s sovereignty.  However, it risks leaving gaps in support for Ukraine’s recovery, which could undermine stability in the long term.

• Commitment to Economic Recovery:  Guarantors could provide financial aid and technical assistance for rebuilding Ukraine’s infrastructure and institutions, ensuring a stable recovery.  This enhances trust and creates conditions for sustainable peace.  However, financial commitments may strain guarantors’ resources, and prolonged involvement could spark political resistance in their home countries.

• Support for Long-Term Integration:  Guarantors could facilitate Ukraine’s integration into international systems, such as the EU or global trade frameworks, to solidify its economic and political stability.  This approach helps Ukraine rebuild as a fully integrated member of the international community but may heighten tensions with Russia if seen as reducing its sphere of influence.