Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Law & Social Bounds

Articles

No. 4 (42) (2022)

Initiative of Special Tribunal on the crime of aggression against Ukraine – challenges and perspectives

DOI
https://doi.org/10.36128/priw.vi42.538
Submitted
October 11, 2022
Published
2023-01-19 — Updated on 2023-01-25
Versions

Abstract

The Russian-Ukrainian armed conflict has activated several initiatives to collect evidence of the international crimes committed during the conflict and to guarantee individual criminal responsibility of their perpetrators. Despite their extraordinary intensity, these processes do not make it possible to try the perpetrators of crimes of aggression.
Indeed, the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court in this regard relates only to crimes committed by nationals of a State Party to the Statute in the territory of another
State Party. In contrast, the exercise of jurisdiction by the national courts of third states may suffer from several potential limitations. In this situation, Ukraine has launched a campaign to establish a special tribunal for crimes of aggression against Ukraine (STAU). The article outlines this initiative and the legal issues that would need to be resolved if it were to be implemented. Options for the establishment of the STAU are analyzed, taking into account
two main possibilities – establishment based on an interstate multilateral treaty and establishment in cooperation with an international organization (e.g. UN, EU, Council of Europe). The immunity of state representatives from foreign criminal jurisdiction and the applicable circumstances precluding wrongfulness is also discussed in this context.

References

  1. Belliard Edwige, „France”, [w:] The Crime of Aggression A Commentary, red. Claus Kreß, Stefan Barriga. 1143-1148. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.
  2. Coracini Astrid, „The International Criminal Court’s Exercise of Jurisdiction Over the Crime of Aggression – at Last … in Reach … Over Some” Goettingen Journal of International Law, nr 2 (2010): 745-789.
  3. Cryer Robert, Prosecuting International Crimes: Selectivity and the International Criminal Law Regime. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
  4. Czapliński Władysław, „Zbrodnia agresji jako przestępstwo przeciwko prawu międzynarodowemu” Archiwum Kryminologii, XXIX–XXX
  5. (2007/2008): 815-825. doi.org/10.7420/AK2007-2008BL.
  6. Dapo Akande, „Prosecuting Aggression: The Consent Problem and the Role of the Security Council” Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper, 10 (2011): 1-41.
  7. Dapo Akande, „The Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over Nationals of Non-Parties: Legal Basis and Limits” Journal of International Criminal Justice, nr 3 (2003): 618-650. doi.org/10.1093/jicj/1.3.618.
  8. Dawidowicz Martin, Third-Party Countermeasures in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.
  9. Dupuy Pierre-Marie, „Back to the Future of a Multilateral Dimension of the Law of State Responsibility for Breaches of »Obligations Owed to the International Community as a Whole«”, European Journal of International Law, nr 4 (2012): 1059-1069. doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chs078.
  10. Goussac Netta, „Territoriality and the Crime of Aggression” New Zealand Yearbook of International Law, nr 6 (2008): 169-175.
  11. Green James, Christian Henderson, Tom Ruys, „Russia’s attack on Ukraine and the jus ad bellum” Journal on The Use of Force and International Law, nr 1 (2022): 4-30. doi.org/10.1080/20531702.2022.2056803.
  12. Grzebyk Patrycja, „»Specjalna operacja wojskowa« Rosji w Ukrainie – indywidualna odpowiedzialność za zbrodnie agresji i zbrodnie wojenne” Państwo i Prawo, 9 (2022): 56-76.
  13. Grzebyk Patrycja, Cele osobowe i rzeczowe w konfliktach zbrojnych w świetle prawa międzynarodowego. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Scholar, 2018.
  14. Grzebyk Patrycja, Odpowiedzialność karna za zbrodnię agresji. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2010.
  15. Heidrich Dorota, Mechanizmy sprawiedliwości okresu przejściowego w stosunkach międzynarodowych: studium przypadku Kosowa. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Elipsa, 2019.
  16. Heller Kevin, „Options for Prosecuting Russian Aggression Against Ukraine: A Critical Analysis” Journal of Genocide Research, (2022): 1-24. doi:10.1080/14623528.2022.2095094.
  17. Jachec-Neale Agnieszka, „Targeting State and Political Leadership in Armed Conflicts” Vanderbilt Law Review, nr 3 (2021): 931-957.
  18. Kaul Hans, Claus Kress, „Jurisdiction and Cooperation in the Statute of the International Criminal Court: Principles and Compromises” Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, 2 (2013): 143-175. doi:10.1017/S1389135900000404.
  19. Koh Harold, Todd Buchwald, „The Crime of Aggression: The United States Perspective” The American Journal of International Law, 109 (2015): 257-295. doi:10.5305/amerjintelaw.109.2.0257.
  20. Kranz Jerzy, „Rosyjska wojna o »pokój«, czyli Ukraina między polityką a prawem” Państwo i Prawo, nr 9 (2022): 3-29.
  21. Kreß Claus, Stefan Barriga, The Crime of Aggression A Commentary. Cambridge Cambridge University Press, 2016.
  22. Krzan Bartłomiej, „Finansowanie międzynarodowych trybunałów karnych” Ekonomia, 16 (2008): 99-106.
  23. Krzan Bartłomiej, Kompetencje Rady Bezpieczeństwa ONZ w międzynarodowym sądownictwie karnym. Toruń: TNOiK, 2009.
  24. Kuczyńska Hanna, „Odpowiedzialność przed Międzynarodowym Trybunałem Karnym za zbrodnie prawa międzynarodowego popełnione w czasie konfliktu w Ukrainie” Palestra, nr 4 (2022): 11-17.
  25. Kwiecień Roman, „The aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine: International law and power politics or »what happens now«” Polish Review of International and European Law, nr 1 (2022): 9-20.
  26. Puka Avni, Fisnik Korenica, „The »Struggle« to Dissolve the Kosovo Specialist Chambers in The Hague: Stuck between Constitutional Text
  27. and Mission to Pursue Justice” The Law and Practice of International, Courts and Tribunals, 20 (2021): 548-575.
  28. doi.org/10.1163/15718034-12341458.
  29. Ruys Tom, „Immunity, Inviolability and Countermeasures – A Closer Look at Non-UN Targeted Sanctions”, [w:] The Cambridge Handbook of Immunities and International Law, red. Tom Ruys, Nicolas Angelet, Luca Ferro. 670-710, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019.
  30. Sellars Kirsten, Crimes against Peace’ and International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
  31. Tams Christopher, Enforcing obligations „erga omnes” in international law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
  32. Thirlway Hugh, „The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1960-1989 (Part Nine)” British Yearbook of International Law, nr 1 69 (1998): 1-83. https://doi.org/10.1093/bybil/69.1.1
  33. Whomersley Christopher, „United Kingdom”, [w:] The Crime of Aggression A Commentary, red. Claus Kreß, Stefan Barriga. 1285-1289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.
  34. Wierczyńska Karolina, „Dekada działalności Międzynarodowego Trybunału Karnego – sukcesy i porażki międzynarodowego wymiaru sprawiedliwości” Studia Prawnicze, z. 2 (2013): 123-142.
  35. Wierczyńska Karolina, „Immunitet urzędującej głowy państwa – kilka uwag na marginesie spraw toczących się przed Międzynarodowym Trybunałem Karnym”, [w:] Ewolucja immunitetów mających swe źródło w prawie międzynarodowym, red. Izabela Skomerska-Muchowska. 189-206. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 2014.
  36. Wrange Pal, „The Crime of Aggression, Domestic Prosecutions and Complementarity”, [w:] The Crime of Aggression A Commentary, red. Claus Kreß, Stefan Barriga. 704-751. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.