Preventing Putin from escaping punishment: which court will help Ukraine achieve justice

Similar to the historical precedents set by the Nuremberg Tribunal and the Tokyo Tribunal after World War II, this type of international court aims to try and prosecute those responsible for the crime of aggression against Ukraine, despite immunity.

The need for such a tribunal or court is determined by the seriousness of Russia's actions against Ukraine, which violate international law and state sovereignty.

The creation of a specialized court outside the UN General Assembly will enable member states to cooperate more quickly and efficiently in creating a legal framework for the fight against Russian aggression. This court, modeled on historical courts, will have a flexible structure, allowing member states to provide support, resources and expertise in line with their political capacities.

It should be noted that the creation of a Special Court for Ukraine for the crime of aggression with the support of the UN General Assembly is a desirable option for the prosecution of aggression.

A viable proposal has been created that includes a sample UN General Assembly resolution, a model statute establishing the tribunal, and practical "Seven Steps" to implement the statute with an indictment against Vladimir Putin and his senior military and political leadership.

We have created similar tribunals before - a historical example is the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone.

He was successful and brought the head of state to justice for international crimes. We can do this again by creating an international court.

The task of the international court for Ukraine will be to identify and bring to justice the natural or legal persons who bear the greatest responsibility for the aggression against Ukraine. His mandate will include a thorough examination of evidence, testimony and the circumstances of the conflict to ensure a fair and just trial.

 

By prosecuting those who have committed or ordered acts of aggression, this court will aim not only to achieve justice, but also to prevent future violations of international law and impunity.

The Statute of the International Court of Justice for Ukraine may even provide for the prosecution of those countries that aid and abet aggression against Ukraine, such as Iran, Belarus and North Korea.

It should be noted that the establishment of a special court or an international court with the support of the UN General Assembly would complement the important work of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Working together, sharing information, evidence and a common focus on prosecution will strengthen the capabilities of both justice systems and contribute to more effective investigations of each.

These two options for prosecuting aggression will not compete or interfere with the work of the ICC.

One of the main advantages of an international court is its rapid establishment, which is extremely important given the urgency of the situation.

Provided that the process is optimized and supported by any number of member states, this court could quickly begin work, conduct an investigation and, ultimately, bring to justice those responsible for the aggression against Ukraine. Time sensitivity emphasizes the importance of establishing a legal mechanism to counter such acts of aggression as soon as possible. After all, we live in a fragmented and contradictory world.

The political advantage of this court would also allow member states to directly participate in the drafting of the court's statute by providing funds, equipment and personnel or indirectly by providing political protection and support to the court's work.

The number of states supporting the court can be flexible, and member states can join it even after signing the statute. Member states could also join a steering committee that would oversee the court's activities. Ukraine would be an ex officio member.

Both the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals had a core group that created the courts and numerous states that supported them, provided staff and political support, and even sent observers and delegations. These models have succeeded, and the international court will also work.

 

A court outside the UN system, even if composed of member states, would remove the political baggage that exists around the creation of any UN court or tribunal.

 

The need for the world's democracies to resist Russian aggression against Ukraine stems from the fundamental principles on which democratic societies rest - values such as sovereignty, freedom and the rule of law.

Democracies are built on the assumption of respect for the rights of sovereign nations and respect for international laws and norms.

By uniting to oppose this aggression, democratic countries are sending a strong signal of their collective commitment to protect these principles. Aggression against Ukraine not only violates international law, but also calls into question the very essence of democracy, undermining the autonomy and self-determination of a sovereign nation.

Opposing this aggression is not only a solution to a separate conflict, it is the defense of a world order based on democratic values. The lack of a decisive response could set a dangerous precedent that would encourage others to disregard international norms and encroach on the sovereignty of other countries.

We are already seeing this in the Middle East, with Iran flexing its authoritarian muscles and causing unrest and conflict (most likely) by ordering and supporting Hamas' unprovoked attack on Israel.

 

Moreover, democratic states are interested in maintaining stability and security at the global level. Allowing unchecked aggression threatens stability in regions far beyond the immediate conflict zone.

A strong and unified response by democratic countries is not only a moral imperative, but also a strategic necessity to prevent further destabilization and conflict from Iran, North Korea and China.

The establishment of the International Court of Justice by democratic states for the crime of aggression against Ukraine testifies to their commitment to the principles of the rule of law and their desire to bring to justice those who violate it.

This shows the collective determination of democratic countries to resist aggression, showing that these values are not just rhetoric, but guiding principles that guide their actions on the world stage.

Finally, resisting Russian aggression against Ukraine is a testament to the unity and strength of democracies, demonstrating commitment to protecting sovereignty, respecting international law and preserving the stability and security of the world community in accordance with the paradigm of the United Nations, established in 1945.

The main challenge is overcoming presidential immunity, the legal shield that protects leaders like Putin from international prosecution.

Such immunity protects them from lawsuits before foreign or international courts while in office. This creates a significant barrier to justice and accountability, rendering certain proposed solutions and options ineffective.

Of course, exploring such alternatives as a hybrid national model or a regional court to counter Russian aggression against Ukraine may seem appealing at first glance.

However, upon closer examination, these options reveal their inherent limitations and obstacles, which make them ineffective in solving the main issue – bringing the guilty to justice, especially when it comes to a figure like President Vladimir Putin, who is protected by the immunity of the head of state.

One alternative – a hybrid national model that tries to combine national and international legal frameworks – often faces jurisdictional problems and lacks the necessary impartiality and independence to handle cases involving senior officials from other countries.

The complexity of international law and the political nature of such cases can lead to protracted legal battles, delays and, ultimately, the inability to effectively prosecute individuals protected by sovereign immunity.

Similarly, a regional court, while potentially more focused on a specific conflict, may lack the international consensus and authority necessary to manage complex geopolitical situations.

In cases involving head of state immunity, regional courts may face significant obstacles in asserting their jurisdiction and enforcing their decisions, particularly against President Vladimir Putin. The lack of a global position will also become a political problem and question the legitimacy of this option.

The creation of an international tribunal for Ukraine for the crime of aggression by UN member states outside the General Assembly appears to be a more feasible option because of its potential to resolve the issue of head of state immunity through the concerted efforts and cooperation of many countries.

The proposed approach could move beyond political smokescreens and focus on creating a specialized court with the necessary mandate to administer justice without diplomatic or jurisdictional constraints.

 

Such a step is an important step towards maintaining international law, justice and accountability.

The flexible structure and quick start of work of this court, created on the model of historical tribunals, can become a platform for countering Russian aggression against Ukraine, as well as a strong signal of global dedication to protecting the sovereignty and integrity of states.

 

While other options may create the appearance of holding Russian aggression accountable, they are inherently limited in their ability to overcome a significant legal hurdle – head of state immunity.

Therefore, the creation of a specialized international court, in the absence of an international court with the support of the UN General Assembly, remains the most feasible and effective way to oppose Russian aggression against Ukraine and to bring the perpetrators to justice. Time does not stand still.

The world, whose attention can easily be diverted, will turn away from Ukraine. This should not happen.

Time and distraction are Putin's main weapons. He knows that democracies lose focus over time (as happened in Syria) and move on, passing through crime zones.

Putin is trying to wait and then attack Ukraine and other UN member states. In his opinion, Ukraine is just the beginning.

We have a historic moment to act in accordance with the rule of law. It cannot be allowed to slip away and destroy the geopolitics of the 21st century.