The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has illuminated the critical need for accountability on the international stage, particularly regarding violations of sovereignty and acts of aggressive warfare. President Vladimir Putin’s actions in Ukraine not only pose a significant threat to global peace but also challenge the foundational principles of international law. Prosecuting Putin for the international crime of aggression against Ukraine is essential, necessitating the establishment of an internationally created court that adheres to specific foundational legal principles to ensure an effective and fair process. Ukraine has been firm in holding Putin accountable for the crime of aggression. Backed by the nations that make up the Core Group and with the political cornerstone of the Council of Europe, a possible framework is being developed on creating just such a court. As time is of the essence, this framework must be put in place soon. Here are some key considerations as this process moves forward:
No Head of State Immunity
A key consideration in prosecuting international crimes is the principle of accountability, which fundamentally challenges the traditional notion of head of state immunity. The prevailing view is that no individual, regardless of political position, should be immune from prosecution for gross violations of international law to include a sitting head of state. This perspective aligns with a growing consensus within the international community. The successful prosecution of President Charles Taylor of Liberia, a sitting head of state by an international court for international crimes sets an important precedent.
Allowing Putin to evade justice due to his status would not only undermine accountability, but also send a troubling message to other leaders that they might escape repercussions for similar actions. The principle of equality before the law must prevail; any leader, including Putin, must be held accountable for egregious acts that violate established norms of conduct. Failure to prosecute him would not only erode trust in international institutions, but also set a dangerous precedent that may embolden other authoritarian leaders to act without fear of consequences. The United Nations and its member states must hold firm and account for the Russian Federation’s flouting of the rule of law.
Concurrent Jurisdiction
Establishing an internationally created court for prosecuting aggression also hinges on the principle of concurrent jurisdiction. This principle asserts that multiple jurisdictions have the authority to prosecute such crimes, reinforcing their universality and the collective responsibility of the international community. Concurrent jurisdiction fosters global collaboration and ensures that acts of aggression do not go unchecked, allowing for the prosecution of leaders in forums closer to the affected states while retaining the moral and legal authority of international law. This mechanism conveys a clear message: aggressive actions will not be tolerated, regardless of their location or context. Moreover, it enhances the credibility of international legal processes by ensuring that those most affected by aggression have a voice in the prosecution of perpetrators.
The UN Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) epitomizes this principle with its innovative approach to concurrent jurisdiction. Established to prosecute those bearing the greatest responsibility for atrocities committed during Sierra Leone’s civil war, the SCSL operated alongside national courts, effectively bridging international and domestic legal frameworks. This model not only reinforced accountability but also preserved the sovereignty of Sierra Leone’s judiciary by allowing it to handle lower-profile cases. In practice, the SCSL’s concurrent jurisdiction facilitated efficient prosecutions and fostered a robust international legal precedent. It demonstrated that when international and domestic legal systems work in harmony, they can address complex crimes comprehensively, providing justice for victims and strengthening the rule of law.
Court Leadership with International Experience
The effectiveness and credibility of such a court will heavily depend on its leadership. It is vital that individuals appointed to leadership positions (such as the Prosecutor, Registrar, and all its Judges) within this court possess extensive experience in international law, particularly in adjudicating issues related to international crimes. Leaders with backgrounds in leading past international tribunals or courts can ensure that proceedings adhere to the highest standards of justice and fairness. Their expertise will be crucial in maintaining the integrity of the court and fostering trust in its proceedings. A court led by seasoned professionals can help operationalize justice against aggression effectively, efficiently, and demonstrate the international community’s commitment to upholding the rule of law fairly and openly.
Definition of the Crime of Aggression
A clear and precise definition of the crime of aggression in this court’s statute is another fundamental requirement for establishing an internationally created court. The definition provided by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court serves as a reliable and internationally recognized benchmark for adjudicating such offenses. This definition reflects a long-term consensus among international legal scholars and practitioners, encapsulating established principles of international jurisprudence. Any deviation from this definition—such as adopting a nationalistic interpretation—could weaken the robustness of international law regarding aggression. Such a shift would invite misuse and manipulation, disrupting the carefully developed legal frameworks essential for maintaining global order.
Holding Leaders Accountable Now and Into the Future
The overarching principle guiding the prosecution of leaders for aggressive acts is the imperative of accountability. Ignoring Putin’s aggression in Ukraine would set a perilous precedent for future international relations. If the international community fails to hold him accountable, it would inadvertently signal to future dictators that they too may act with impunity, resorting to force rather than diplomacy in resolving conflicts. This trajectory contradicts the United Nations’ long-standing paradigm, which emphasizes peaceful dispute resolution and respect for sovereignty. For nearly eight decades, the global order has relied on the premise that the rule of law must be stronger than the rule of the gun.
Forging a path of accountability for aggressive acts will serve the dual purpose of nurturing a culture of peace and deterring future transgressions. Thus, it is paramount that actions are taken to prosecute Putin, not merely as a matter of political expediency, but as an essential measure to reinforce the global legal order. Respect for the rule of law must prevail in the face of tyranny, ensuring that the path to a peaceful future is carved by justice rather than force. This prosecution of Putin by the international community would not only represent a stand against Putin’s actions but also serve as a bulwark against future aggressors, affirming the international community’s commitment to a just and peaceful world.
David M. Crane is the Founding Chief Prosecutor of the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone and Founder of the Global Accountability Network. He is part of a high level Working Group drafting the foundational statute for a multinational court on aggression.
