“Pravova derzhava”. Issue 37 (2026), pages 784–793.
DOI: 10.33663/0869-2491-2026-37-784-793
Dere Yasin
Current issues of the jurisdiction of the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine
ISSN online: 2617-9776 print: 0869-2491
The article provides a comprehensive examination of the jurisdiction of the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine, focusing on its personal, subject-matter and territorial dimensions within the broader context of contemporary challenges to international criminal justice. Particular attention is devoted to the conceptual foundations of the Tribunal’s establishment, including the doctrinal approaches that justify its creation as a response to the structural limitations of existing accountability mechanisms. The study highlights the dificulty of ensuring individual criminal responsibility of senior political and military oficials of the aggressor State, especially in light of the ICC’s restricted jurisdiction over the crime of aggression and the continued effect of personal immunities under international law.
The analysis demonstrates that the Special Tribunal, functioning as an independent international judicial body established through an agreement between Ukraine and an international organization, has the potential to fill these institutional gaps. By providing a clearer and more coherent jurisdictional framework, the Tribunal could facilitate the prosecution of high-level decision-makers involved in planning, preparing, initiating or executing the act of aggression. The article further emphasizes that the Tribunal’s effectiveness will ultimately depend on its alignment with imperative norms of international law, the practice of contemporary international criminal courts, and the willingness of the international community to ensure cooperation and enforcement. Overall, the study argues that the Tribunal represents a significant development in the evolving architecture of international criminal justice and contributes to strengthening the prohibition of aggression as a fundamental norm of the international legal order.
Keywords: Special Tribunal, jurisdiction, international criminal jurisdiction, individual criminal responsibility, ad hoc tribunal, immunities, Council of Europe, crime of aggression.
References
1. Council of Europe. Parliamentary Assembly. Resolution 2598 (2025). Russian war of aggression against Ukraine: the need to ensure accountability and avoid impunity. 9 April 2025. URL: https://pace.coe.int/en/files/34286/html
2. Special Tribunal for Lebanon. Interlocutory Decision on the Applicable Law: Terrorism, Conspiracy, Homicide, Perpetration, Cumulative Charging (STL-11-01/I/AC/R176bis), 16 February 2011.para 42(i)
3. McDougall, Carrie. Why Creating a Special Tribunal for Aggression Against Ukraine Is the Best Available Option: A Reply to Kevin Jon Heller and Other Critics. URL: https://opiniojuris.org/2022/03/15/why-creating-a-special-tribunal-for-aggression-against-ukraine-is-the-best-available-option-a-reply-to-kevin-jon-heller-and-other-critics/
4. Uhoda mizh Ukraiinoyu ta Radoiu Yevropy pro stvorennia Spetsialnoho trybunalu shchodo zlochynu ahresii proty Ukraïny. Statut Spetsialnoho trybunalu shchodo zlochynu ahresii proty Ukraïny. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/994_002-25#n102 (in Ukr.).
5. Zolo, Danilo. The Double-Track Approach to International Criminal Justice. Jura Gentium — War, Law, and Global Order, 2008.
6. International Military Tribunal. Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Trial of German Major War Criminals, 1 October 1946. Vol. I. Nuremberg: IMT, 1947. P. 24–25. URL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/45f18e/pdf/
7. International Law Commission. Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind — Commentary to the Draft Code. UN, 1996. URL: https://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_l2.pdf
8. Bazov O. V. Mizhnarodnyi sud shchodo ahresii proty Ukraïny v systemi mizhnarodnoho pravoporiadku. Visnyk Natsionalnoi akademii pravovykh nauk Ukraïny. 2023. Vol. 30, № 4. P. 54–74. P. 63 https://doi.org/10.31359/1993-0909-2023-30-4-54 (in Ukr.).
9. International Criminal Court. The Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al-Bashir: Judgment of the Appeals Chamber on the Jordan Referral re Al-Bashir Appeal, 6 May 2019, Court record CR2019_02593. para 113,117,115.
10. Special Court for Sierra Leone. Prosecutor v. Charles Taylor, Judgment, 31 May 2004. para 52,53
11. International Military Tribunal. Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal, Volume I. Nuremberg, 1947. P. 171. URL: https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/Books/blue/pdf/NT_Vol-I.pdf
12. International Court of Justice. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgment of 27 June 1986. para 115, 292. URL: https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/70/070-19860627-JUD-01-00-BI.pdf
13. McDougall C. The Imperative of Prosecuting Crimes of Aggression Committed against Ukraine. Journal on the Use of Force and International Law. 2022. Vol. 9, Issue 1. P. 15–30.
14. Sands P. Putin’s Use of Military Force is a Crime of Aggression. Financial Times. 28 February 2022. URL: https://www.ft.com/content/cbbdd146-4e36-42fb-95e1-50128506652c
15. Heller, Kevin Jon. The Best Option: An Internationalized Tribunal Based on Ukrainian Law. Opinio Juris. 2022. URL: https://opiniojuris.org/2022/03/16/the-best-option-an-extraordinary-ukrainian-chamber-for-aggression/
16. International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Prosecutor v. Karadžić. Decision on the Accused’s Second Motion for Inspection and Disclosure: Immunity Issue. 17 December 2008. Case № IT-95-5/18-PT. para 1. URL: https://www.icty.org/x/cases/karadzic/tdec/en/081217.pdf
Дата першого надходження рукопису до видання: 08.12.2025
Дата прийнятого до друку рукопису після рецензування: 03.03.2026
Дата публікації: 24.03.2026