“Why an international tribunal is needed immediately, and how world powers are undermining their own values, avoiding Russia’s responsibility.”, — write: www.pravda.com.ua
An abridged version of this text is published in The Economist
For most Ukrainians, the Russian invasion divided life into “before” and “after”. I am not an exception. I used to be the Deputy Prosecutor General of Ukraine. Now I am a serviceman of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, who deals with the application of the law of war, in particular with the issue of collecting evidence from the battlefield (battlefield forensics). For some time I lived in a dugout near Pokrovsk, closely observing the brave defense of Ukrainian lands and people.
We have too many losses. There is almost no time to think. And yet, I can’t stop thinking about my former job – and, in particular, about how the international justice system is failing. Russia is trying to avoid responsibility for its crimes. And she partially succeeds.
Ukraine and its partners are currently weighing the American-Russian draft peace plan, which provides for “full amnesty for military actions” and the parties “agree not to raise claims and not to settle further disputes.” However, a general amnesty is generally contrary to international law, as no state can abolish the most serious crimes. If such a provision is adopted, it will entrench impunity and undermine the foundations of the international legal order, in particular, efforts to create Special Tribunal regarding the crime of aggression against Ukraine. In order to fully understand what is at stake, it is worth recalling the path that Ukraine has taken.
Advertising:
Before the full-scale war, I organized and coordinated work on the investigation of war crimes in Ukraine. He started in 2016 as a prosecutor of the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, and later as a deputy Prosecutor General. Before that, there was no systematic work on the topic of international crimes, because for Ukraine it was something new and incomprehensible. Even the legal qualification of what was happening was, to put it mildly, incorrect. At the time, I believed that if we collected enough evidence: documented every destroyed house, every injured civilian, every extrajudicial execution, justice would surely come. However, everything turned out to be not so simple.
We document international crimes. New evidence appears every day. So today, justice is as much a strategic necessity as victory. Just justice, not revenge. Liberation of the territory does not mean justice. True justice is possible only thanks to a whole set of measures, including bringing the guilty to justice.
Despite this, many still misunderstand the origins of this war. Some count it from 2022, others from 2014. In reality, Russia’s campaign to destroy Ukrainian identity has been going on for centuries: from the suppression of language and culture to the destruction of statehood. This is not just a war for territory. This is a war for existence itself.
When talks of a cease-fire are heard again, it is important to repeat the obvious: there can be no real and lasting peace without justice. In March 2022, during negotiations in Istanbul, Russia tried to force Ukraine to abandon its legal claims. The Russian memorandum, submitted in June 2025, again contained a demand to renounce any “reciprocal claims” regarding the crimes committed. Similar attempts are being made now. Ukraine is constantly offered the illusion of peace in exchange for territories and justice.
Justice or its imitation? Achieving justice has always been a challenge for the international community and has often been perceived as the prerogative of the “winners”. In the age of hybrid wars, it is much more difficult to find these “winners”. The situation becomes even more alarming when the victim state is expected to judge the aggressor. Ukrainian courts are not the ancient London Old Bailey. They have neither the institutional capacity nor the international legitimacy necessary for such processes. The investigation of hundreds of thousands of episodes requires the involvement of an authoritative international mechanism.
Some proposed models look convincing on paper, but are unlikely to pass the test in practice. For example, the creation of a “regional” tribunal under the auspices of the Council of Europe may seem logical, but its jurisdiction is limited. Even now, the launch of its work is under threat. Moreover, under such a model, it is unlikely that it will be possible to bypass the immunities of the highest officials of Russia – the president, the prime minister, the minister of foreign affairs – those who bear the greatest responsibility.
One of the promising solutions could be the creation of a hybrid justice mechanism that would cover the entire range of international crimes: aggression, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Hybrid models have already proven their effectiveness: in Sierra Leone, the current head of state was tried, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, international experience was integrated into the national system. Also worthy of attention is the example of the Central African Republic, which can be useful for Ukraine.
Such partnerships not only ensure justice, they strengthen national legal institutions. Until 2019, Ukraine actually had no infrastructure for investigating international crimes. And he still does not have enough experience and ability to handle the most difficult cases on his own. The involvement of international judges and prosecutors is necessary for investigations to be credible and authoritative.
Impunity is contagious Justice for Ukraine is justice for the world. If a state with nuclear weapons can invade another country and kill with impunity, what sense will international norms have?
We are witnessing the erosion of international criminal justice. Mongolia and Tajikistan refused to comply with the ICC warrant for the arrest of Vladimir Putin. The USA introduced sanctions against the officials of the Court itself. Hungary actually stopped cooperating with the ISS. This undermines the work of the only permanent Court, called to punish the most serious crimes.
Additionally, problems arise within this Court. In the early stages of the development of the institution, the human factor plays a significant role, because this activity requires dedication and service. That is why the recent removal of the ICC prosecutor after a year of allegations of misconduct has become another crack in the fragile architecture of international justice.
The ICC can issue warrants, but without enforcement they remain symbolic. If the Court is unable to enforce its own decisions, what chance will the newly created tribunal have? Russia and other states are actively undermining the very idea of universal jurisdiction: they ridicule the Court, threaten judges, and cover themselves with diplomacy. If impunity becomes the norm, international justice will lose its meaning.
However, I did not lose hope. We continue to collect evidence, now as part of the Armed Forces. In particular, near Pokrovsk, I saw Ukrainian prisoners who had surrendered being shot at point-blank range. I saw wounded soldiers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine being executed by the Russian military, despite the lack of resistance. Such brutality should keep us all focused on the pursuit of justice.
IN Russia is a test of the international legal order. If such crimes go unpunished, it will be safe to proclaim that force determines law, that borders can be redrawn by violence. But the sad fact is that Ukraine is not capable of defending justice itself. The world must actively support the standards it proclaims. The declared values of human dignity, freedom, and justice have weight only when they are based on the virtues of wisdom, courage, and true devotion to justice. It is by practicing these virtues, not merely proclaiming them, that the legal and moral order upon which the free world rests can be preserved.
Gunduz Mamedov
A column is a type of material that reflects exclusively the point of view of the author. It does not claim objectivity and comprehensive coverage of the topic in question. The point of view of the editors of “Economic Pravda” and “Ukrainian Pravda” may not coincide with the author’s point of view. The editors are not responsible for the reliability and interpretation of the given information and perform exclusively the role of a carrier.