““The rates have never been so high.””, – WRITE: www.pravda.com.ua
Translation of material published in Time.
On Easter Sunday 2022, the rocket strike destroyed a quiet town in Donetsk region. After the attack, 40-year-old Oksana fought for her life, while her husband and young son were killed instantly.
In January next year in Dnipro, 23-year-old Anastasia lost her parents as a result of a blow to their apartment building. She was already mourning her fiance who died in the war.
Advertising:
In September 2024, another Ukrainian family was killed – this time in Lviv: the wife of Yaroslav and three of their daughters died in their home from another Russian rocket.
These tragedies are no exception. It is the cruel everyday life of a nation living under fire. Names and dates are broken lives and destroyed the future.
Three years after the start of a full -scale invasion of Russia, justice became the slogan of millions of Ukrainians. It is a responsibility that the guilty of this aggression is punished, and that in the future no one follows the example of Vladimir Putin. This issue has also become new after Donald Trump has promised to finish the war and began negotiations with Russia.
But achieving justice is not a simple task. The war in Ukraine exposed deep faults in international law, calling into question its ability to perform its main function.
While world leaders and jurists are discussing how to respond, two main approaches have formed. The first is the creation of a tribunal that will be engaged in a crime of aggression, that is, a conscious decision to resolve an unjust war. The second is the creation of a hybrid mechanism that would consider the whole range of international crimes committed during the Russian invasion: from war crimes to crimes against humanity.
The previously announced creation of a special tribunal over Russia for the crime of aggression on the basis of the Council of Europe contains a significant gap. Despite his good intentions, this approach risks justice a European problem, not a universal imperative.
And Russia has already grabbed such an interpretation. At the Brix summit, in October, Moscow presented the initiatives of international justice as part of the Western Conspiracy, trying to split the world into the so -called “Global South” and “West”. The regional tribunal can inadvertently nourish this rhetoric, even more polarizing the world.
In order for justice to be proper, it cannot be regional. It should be global. This means the formation of a fairly wide coalition to give legitimacy by this effort, which will include countries from all over the world.
Modern international law was born from the ruins of world wars. After the First World War, the early attempts to bring the perpetrators, such as Leipzig processes, gave valuable lessons, although they were limited by weak legal mechanisms. The Second World War led to the creation of the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals, which were of great importance and precedent. However, these efforts were fundamentally related to the dynamics of victory: the Allies judged the losing “axis”.
The situation of Ukraine is different. If the war ends with agreements or freezing the conflict, none of the parties will feel like a winner or defeated. This can lead to a shaky settlement that will leave a question of justice unanswered. The problem is complicated by the Russian nuclear threat, which affects decision -making internationally.
Allies of Ukraine face an important choice: will they give priority of justice, even if it complicates the search for peace? Or, on the contrary, will be required by Ukraine to give way to justice in exchange for a fragile truce? These anxiety is particularly acute in the context of Ukraine’s exclusion from what is increasingly called the “negotiation process”.
The United States has ambiguous relations with international criminal justice, sometimes actively opposed to the International Criminal Court. Even resorting to sanctions, a step that directly undermines the fundamental principle of justice: the prosecution of the perpetrators in international crimes. Such actions give Russia and other states the opportunity to further discredit international law and to weaken the global security system.
Now the US has a choice: to lead the process of establishing justice or stay away. The global tribunal against Ukraine will give America a chance to confirm its commitment to the rule of law and refute the Russian narrative about “Western hypocrisy”. However, this requires a clear purpose and desire to participate in a disorderly, often disappointing process of achieving an international consensus.
It is not only Ukraine’s struggle. This is a verification of the entire international order. Is it able to adapt to the realities of a multipolar world where aggressors can no longer be punished? Will he be able to balance the desire for peace with the need for justice?
Justice in this context is not just an abstract concept. It is the basis of any long peace. Without it, the scars of this war – for Ukraine, Europe and world order – will remain unheard.
In order for justice to win, it should not have borders. It should demonstrate a common commitment to the principles where sovereignty is inviolable, the right is higher, and no country is too powerful to avoid responsibility. And it cannot be the subject of trading.
The rates have never been so high. The call of Ukraine for justice is at the same time a call to the world: to choose the rule of law, not force; create a system that protects the weak from the strong; And to ensure that even in the darkest times, responsibility will always be a priority.
It is a moment of truth – not only for Ukraine, but for the whole world.
Gunduz Mammades
A column is a material that reflects the author’s point of view. The text of the column does not claim the objectivity and comprehensive coverage of the topic that rises in it. The editorial board of “Ukrainian Truth” is not responsible for the accuracy and interpretation of the information provided and plays only the role of the carrier. The point of view of the UP editorial board may not coincide with the point of view of the author of the column.