hotel-rwanda.com

Chapter 134: Revitalizing International Law: The Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression

The year is 2028. We are in The Hague, the Netherlands, the world capital of international justice. But we are not in the familiar, and often fraught, chamber of the International Criminal Court. We are in the Great Hall of Justice at the Peace Palace, a grand, cathedral-like space repurposed for a historic, inaugural session. The flags of over one hundred nations line the walls. At the front of the room, on a raised dais, sit a panel of distinguished international judges. Below them, the lead prosecutor, a woman renowned for her tenacity, steps to the podium to deliver her opening statement. This is the first day of the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine.

"Your honors," she begins, her voice echoing in the vast, silent hall, "the case we bring today is not about a single massacre in a single town, nor the bombing of a single hospital, however horrific those crimes may be. The world has seen the evidence from Bucha, from Mariupol, from Kherson. Those crimes will be prosecuted. But today, this tribunal will prosecute the crime that made all other crimes possible. We are here to prosecute the supreme international crime, the crime that contains within it the accumulated evil of the whole. We are here to prosecute the crime of aggression."

As she speaks, a massive screen behind the judges illuminates. It does not show gruesome images of death. It shows a video of the Russian Security Council meeting on the eve of the invasion, the nervous faces of the ministers as they are called, one by one, to give their assent to the war. It shows intercepted communications, confirmed by Western intelligence, of the final orders being given to the invasion force. It shows Putin's own televised addresses, his pseudo-historical essays denying Ukraine's right to exist. The narrative of the trial focuses with a laser-like precision on the closing of the "impunity gap"—the legal and political black hole that for decades has allowed the leaders of powerful nations to order a war of conquest, to unleash hell on millions, and then to claim sovereign immunity from prosecution for the war itself, even as their low-level soldiers are tried for the atrocities that inevitably follow. The indictment is not just against a man, but against a doctrine of impunity.

The final scene shows an empty chair in the defendant's dock. On the screen above it is a live satellite feed of the Kremlin. The prosecutor concludes: "The defendant may be absent today, protected by the walls of his fortress. But from this day forward, he is a fugitive from international justice. No corner of the world will be a safe harbor for him or for any who enabled his crime. The age of impunity for the crime of aggression is over. A new precedent is being set, here, today, not just for the sake of the dead of Ukraine, but for the sake of the living in every nation that sleeps next to a larger, more powerful neighbor."

The Discourse 134: Closing the Impunity Gap

This chapter argues that the war in Ukraine has exposed a catastrophic "impunity gap" at the heart of the modern international legal system. While the framework for prosecuting war crimes, crimes against humanity, and even genocide is well-established, there is currently no effective international mechanism to prosecute the foundational crime that makes all others possible: the crime of aggression. This discourse proposes a solution rooted in legal history and political will: the creation of a dedicated Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine.

The Impunity Gap in International Law. The problem is a specific and frustrating legal lacuna. The International Criminal Court (ICC), the world's permanent court for the worst atrocities, does have jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. However, due to a complex compromise made during its creation, it can only exercise that jurisdiction under very specific circumstances. Critically, it cannot prosecute the crime of aggression if the state in question (like Russia) is not a member of the Court and has not consented to its jurisdiction, unless the matter is referred to the Court by the UN Security Council. Since Russia can (and does) veto any such referral, the ICC is permanently paralyzed. This creates a legal black hole: the ICC can issue an arrest warrant for a Russian official for the crime of deporting children (a crime against humanity), but it cannot issue a warrant for the very same officials for the supreme crime of launching the illegal war that enabled those deportations in the first place. The foot soldiers can be prosecuted for the atrocities they commit, but the leaders who sent them there remain legally untouchable on the international stage for the crime of starting the war.

The Nuremberg Precedent: A Crime Against Peace. This impunity gap is a modern anomaly. The legal and historical precedent for prosecuting aggression is powerful and unambiguous: the Nuremberg Trials. Following World War II, the primary charge brought against the top Nazi leadership by the International Military Tribunal was not genocide or war crimes, but "crimes against peace." The tribunal's charter defined this as the "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties." The chief American prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson, famously declared in his opening statement that "to initiate a war of aggression... is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." This principle—that the instigator of an illegal war is the most culpable criminal of all—was the very foundation of post-war international justice, but it is a principle that has been allowed to atrophy.

A Blueprint for Justice: The Special Tribunal. To close the impunity gap, this chapter endorses the blueprint, already championed by a broad coalition of European nations and international legal experts, for the creation of a dedicated Special Tribunal. Unlike the ICC, this tribunal would not be a permanent body, but a temporary (ad hoc) one with a single, focused mandate: to investigate and prosecute the crime of aggression against Ukraine. It would be a hybrid court, established by an agreement between the United Nations and the government of Ukraine, and staffed by a mix of respected international and Ukrainian judges and prosecutors. Its legal basis would be the UN General Assembly, which, by a majority vote, can recommend the creation of such a body, conferring on it a powerful stamp of international legitimacy that bypasses the Russian veto in the Security Council. Creating this tribunal is not just about seeking justice for the past crimes in Ukraine. It is a critical act of deterrence for the future. It is about re-establishing the Nuremberg principle for the 21st century, sending a clear, unambiguous, and legally binding signal to every potential aggressor in the world that starting a war of conquest is not a mere political act, but a crime for which you will be personally held accountable.

Page updated

Report abuse