Unravelling the Treads of International Justice: A Critical Examation of Calls for a Special Tribunal in Ukraine
✍️ Author’s Note
This essay was written in January 2024, at a time when calls for a special tribunal to prosecute the crime of aggression against Ukraine were gathering momentum.
Its argument was never that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, or crimes committed during that war, should escape investigation or punishment. Quite the contrary. The question I raised was whether international justice can retain its legitimacy when its principles are applied selectively — forcefully against defeated or adversarial states, but much less readily against powerful states and their allies.
That question extends far beyond Ukraine.
International law is meaningful only when we are prepared to apply the same standards to ourselves that we demand of others. Otherwise justice risks becoming another instrument of power, and the courthouse another chamber of Wolf Hall.
The events may change. The principle should not.
—WJJH
Calls for establishing a Special Tribunal to address Crimes of Aggression in Ukraine have gained momentum, garnering support from key figures such as Ursula von der Leyen, Chief of the European Union Commission. Notably, these calls come at a juncture where the objective of inducing regime change in Russia remains unfulfilled, and the conflict in Ukraine, as opined by General Mark Milley, is deemed “unwinnable by purely military means,” evolving into a protracted struggle spanning years.
The ongoing events in Ukraine, a sovereign nation, are marked by aggressor-inflicted atrocities, bearing elements of genocidal intent. Russia’s unjustifiable annexation of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine provinces starkly violates the principles of national sovereignty and international law. This unprovoked assault against Ukraine’s territorial integrity stands in direct contravention of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, prohibiting the threat or use of force against another state.
Following the 1946 Nuremberg Tribunal definition, initiating a war of aggression constitutes the “supreme international crime,” encompassing the accumulated evil of the entire conflict. Consequently, the aggressive war in Ukraine qualifies as an international war crime. Paradoxically, it mirrors historical instances such as President George W. Bush’s aggressive war against Iraq and the Russian-German invasion of Poland in 1939, justified as a preventive measure against a potential future threat.
In addressing the alleged international crimes in Ukraine, a measured response is warranted, steering clear of unchecked moral outrage prevalent in the European Union Parliament. However, the aftermath of this conflict should eschew a recurrence of victor’s justice witnessed in Nuremberg, Tokyo, and Baghdad. The international community must resist the establishment of a Special Tribunal with rules selectively applicable to others, excluding Western acts of aggression—a manifestation of the biased and self-serving approach to international law.
A Special Tribunal orchestrated and overseen by the very states implicated in the invasion of Iraq, namely the US, UK, and France, risks perpetuating the notion that some international crimes hold greater significance than others. These states, also culpable for undermining the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, raise concerns about the credibility of such a tribunal.
Notwithstanding, the alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Ukraine demand thorough investigation and prosecution in adherence to International Public Law, International Human Rights Law, International Humanitarian Law (Laws of War), and International Criminal Law. Despite the imperfections and challenges faced by the International Criminal Court (ICC), it remains the appropriate venue for addressing these alleged international crimes, given the ongoing investigations
Yet, calls to prosecute Russia’s top political and military leadership for the crime of aggression against Ukraine pose a challenge, potentially stretching the court beyond its established powers. It is crucial to recognize the historical truth that victors in war shape the narrative, as reflected in the proverbial expression, “To the victor go the spoils,” and the stark reality that gallows were erected for the losers at Nuremberg and Baghdad.
January 2024, Updated August 2026
📌Blog Excerpt
A growing demand to establish a Special Tribunal to address Crimes of Aggression in Ukraine sparks controversy. Supporters, like European Union Commission Chief Ursula von der Leyen, believe it can bring Russian leadership to justice for alleged war crimes. Critics point to potential abuses of power, selective application of international law, and the issue of head-of-state immunity. They argue for relying on the International Criminal Court (ICC), despite its flawed system and opposition from countries like the US.
The Nuremberg trials were carried out in Nuremberg, Germany, between 1945 and 1949.
In what kind of world do we wish to live 