In early February, a 37-nation coalition took a major step forward in its pledge to hold Russian leaders accountable for their invasion of Ukraine. The coalition, which includes all European Union member states, announced “significant progress” toward establishing a special tribunal for the international crime of aggression against Ukraine.
In her statement, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stressed the historic significance of the moment. “When Russia decided to drive its tanks into Ukraine, in violation of the UN Charter, it committed one of the most serious violations: the crime of aggression. Justice is now being served,” she commented.
Russia is accused of committing a huge number of crimes in Ukraine. Russians have allegedly engaged in systematic attacks on Ukrainian civilians, bombing civilian homes, infrastructure, churches, and schools. Alleged Russian crimes also include rape, torture, mass trafficking of adults and children, forced disappearances, and executions of surrendering Ukrainian soldiers.
The perpetrators who committed and facilitated each of these individual crimes must be held legally accountable. But this month’s progress in the push to establish an international tribunal aims to fill another glaring gap in legal accountability. Currently, the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague has the power to prosecute Russian citizens for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, but it cannot hold Russia’s leaders accountable for the decision to invade.
This failure to prosecute Russian leaders for the crime of aggression is a significant problem. After all, the attempt by Vladimir Putin and other Russian leaders to subjugate Ukraine is a touchstone with profound implications for the future of international security. The outcome of Russia’s war in Ukraine will determine whether citizens of all countries can expect to live safely within their recognized borders, free from the threat of invasion, occupation, and annexation.
Enshrined in the United Nations Charter as “territorial integrity” and “state sovereignty,” the principles called into question by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have stood the test of time since World War II. In the past, even when accusations were made that a country was violating these principles, there was never any serious doubt that such rules protecting the country’s borders existed.
These basic rules serve as the cornerstone of today’s international security architecture. They quietly underpin every existing diplomatic, economic, and military arrangement in the world, shaping the environment around us in ways that few notice and that almost everyone takes for granted. If Russia is allowed to claim victory, or even succeed in holding on to any recognized territory in Ukraine, the entire world will face a new dark period in international relations governed by the principle of “might makes right.” A global arms race will likely ensue.
Russia’s invasion and attempted illegal annexation of five Ukrainian regions in a war of conquest is widely recognized by the international community as a crime of aggression. For example, in March 2022, a United Nations General Assembly resolution, supported by an overwhelming 141-5 vote, condemned “Russia’s aggression against Ukraine in violation of the Charter of the United Nations.”
Crucially, the crime of aggression is a crime of leadership. Those targeted must be military or political leaders. This has led to speculation that figures such as Russian President Vladimir Putin and other senior officials in the Russian Ministry of Defense and Foreign Affairs could potentially be charged. It remains unlikely that any senior Russians could be forced to stand trial in person, but even prosecution in absentia could have serious implications for Russia itself and for the future structure of international security.
Significant questions remain about the legal format of a possible tribunal, as various options, including a fully international tribunal or a so-called hybrid tribunal established under Ukrainian law, would face various limitations. The United States has not yet prioritized support for an international tribunal. Instead, Europe is currently taking the lead in advancing justice. The proposed legal framework will now be scrutinized to see whether it precludes prosecution of key leaders while they remain in power, including the Russian head of state and other senior Kremlin officials.
Additional questions include the funding of any future tribunal and its location. The Hague currently appears the most likely option, as it is home to the ICC, the International Court of Justice, and the International Centre for the Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression, which was set up by Eurojust (the European Union’s judicial cooperation agency) in 2023.
This month’s agreement on the framework for a potential tribunal was welcomed in Kyiv. Ukrainian authorities have proven their ability to use international legal mechanisms to achieve justice and accountability for Russian crimes since Moscow first invaded Ukraine in 2014. Legal scholars have hailed Ukraine’s legal efforts as examples of postcolonial nations securing their legal rights through such institutions and “confronting imperialism through international law.”
Beyond the real legal significance of this progress toward a tribunal for Russian crimes against Ukraine, the accompanying narrative adjustment is no less significant. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is not a distant “border issue” but rather a direct assault on the U.S.-led system of international rules. It is therefore a direct referendum on U.S. credibility on the world stage. Senior Trump administration officials have recently framed the Russian invasion as an issue on which “both sides” must compromise. Recognizing the unilateral nature of Russia’s criminal aggression is a reminder of the many sacrifices Ukraine and Ukrainians have already made in the struggle to preserve the basic principles that underpin international relations.
Recent announcements about the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression should serve as a reminder to U.S. leaders that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine remains the world’s best-documented war. There is too much evidence in the public record to deny the reality of Russia’s crimes. Legal battles to hold Russia accountable will produce numerous, highly detailed chronologies of Russia’s crimes in Ukraine. Failure to hold Russia accountable for these crimes could create serious problems for the future of international security and the historical legacy of U.S. President Donald Trump himself.
Christina Hook is an Associate Professor of Conflict Management at Kennesaw State University and a Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center.
Source: Source
