Thirty-six nations and the European Union signed an agreement last May in Chisinau to establish a Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine. The accord in Moldova's capital marked the culmination of a multi-year effort launched immediately after Russia began its invasion in 2022.
No court has judged a leader's decision to initiate a war since the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials following World War II. Despite the United Nations Charter's explicit prohibition binding member states to maintain global peace, aggression has persisted, leading Russian President Vladimir Putin to conclude he could act with impunity. The new tribunal aims to close that legal loophole, creating a precedent that aggressive action carries direct consequences for perpetrators.
The International Criminal Court, the top criminal court globally, has already issued arrest warrants for Putin and senior commanders on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. However, key nations including Russia, the United States, China, India, and Israel do not participate in the court, which counts more than 120 member states. Russia is considered extremely unlikely to extradite Putin or any officials to face those charges.
Addressing Criticisms of International Law
Criticisms of international law suggest that declarations of guilt or unexecuted arrest warrants are meaningless when lives are lost, and that justice moves at a slow pace in a rapidly changing world. Critics also argue that non-ratification by major states makes committed nations appear to issue empty threats, while describing a special tribunal as overly European, selective, premature, or reflective of Western double standards since 1945.
Supporters of the court maintain that establishing a functional accountability mechanism restricts the space where leaders can act without consequences. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said at Davos in January that the concept of the strong doing what they can and the weak suffering what they must was being presented as an inevitable reality of international relations. Carney rejected that view, stating that the rise of hard power must not obscure the fact that the power of legitimacy, integrity, and rules remains strong when exercised collectively.
Unpunished aggression against Georgia in 2008 paved the way for Russian actions in Crimea and Donbas in 2014, which subsequently enabled the 2022 invasion. Proponents argue that resistance to impunity must begin somewhere to break this pattern.
Peace Negotiations and Historical Lessons
No current ceasefire framework on negotiation tables addresses accountability for who ordered the war in Ukraine. Ukraine will not surrender accountability to secure a truce, citing historical precedents from past conflicts.
The Dayton Agreement ended the Bosnian War while excluding indicted Bosnian Serb leaders Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic from peace negotiations. Although the agreement stopped hostilities, justice was delayed, as Slobodan Milosevic was arrested nearly six years later, Karadzic more than 12 years later, and Mladic over 15 years later. That delay contributed to historical revisionism and allowed extreme nationalism to take root.
Global Scope and Precedent
Creating the tribunal required compromises that left no participant entirely satisfied, but its existence is intended to alter strategic calculations for any leader considering unpunished aggression. While more than 140 states voted at the United Nations to condemn Russian aggression in March 2022, only 36 signed the agreement in Moldova in May.
Advocates emphasize that the legal framework designed to protect Ukraine from conquest is intended to protect every state from large power appetites. Robert Jackson, the chief United States prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trial, told the court in his opening argument that the basis on which defendants were judged then would be the basis on which history would judge future generations.
The commentary was written by Iryna Mudra, deputy head of the office of the President of Ukraine; Mykola Yurlov, a senior Ukrainian diplomat; Taras Semenyuk, a communications advisor; and Mark Ellis, executive director of the International Bar Association.
