The ICRC Is Under Attack: We Must Not Allow the Special Tribunal in Ukraine to Fail — Shevchuk
The international criminal justice system is facing one of its most significant challenges since the adoption of the Rome Statute.
The outcome will determine not only whether Russian leaders will be held accountable for their aggression against Ukraine, but also whether powerful states will once again conclude that war, occupation, and mass violence carry no real personal consequences for them.
For many years, Russia has been waging a systematic campaign to discredit the International Criminal Court. This campaign has intensified as the prospect of personal accountability for the invasion of Ukraine has become increasingly real. This pressure manifests itself through political influence, information operations, legal arguments designed to cast doubt on the court’s jurisdiction, attacks on the legitimacy of international institutions, and attempts to use the issue of sovereignty as a shield against accountability.
The pressure on the ICC should not be viewed as an isolated institutional dispute. It is part of a broader struggle over whether international law applies in cases where the alleged perpetrators are high-ranking officials of a nuclear-armed state with global influence. Russia’s goal is clear: to ensure that Vladimir Putin and the political and military leadership responsible for the war against Ukraine never face trial.
The suspension of ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan from his duties amid disputes over the court’s work, as well as the withdrawal or threats of withdrawal from the Rome Statute by states such as Mali, Niger, and Venezuela, are alarming signs. Every institutional crisis, every public attack on the court, and every departure from the principle of international criminal accountability is exploited by those who have the greatest interest in weakening this system.
The danger lies not only in reputational damage. The ICC depends on political support, state cooperation, the execution of arrest warrants, access to evidence, and the willingness of governments to implement its decisions even when it is inconvenient to do so. A court without enforcement mechanisms cannot function effectively. And a court whose legitimacy is constantly questioned by states, politicians, and well-organized disinformation networks becomes increasingly easy to ignore.
For Ukraine, this makes the establishment of a special tribunal for the crime of aggression an urgent necessity.
The role of the ICC remains indispensable. Its investigations into war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide are crucial both for the victims and for the preservation of evidence. However, the crime of aggression poses a distinct legal and political challenge. It concerns the decision by a state’s leadership to launch an illegal war. Therefore, accountability must be directed at those who planned, prepared, initiated, or carried out the invasion—the highest political and military leadership of the aggressor state.
This is precisely why a special tribunal is necessary. It must focus directly on Russian aggression against Ukraine and establish the individual criminal liability of those who made the decision to wage war. Such a tribunal would not replace the ICC but would complement it by filling a jurisdictional gap that has so far prevented existing international mechanisms from fully prosecuting the leadership for the crime at the heart of this conflict.
The stakes are extremely high. If Russia manages to evade accountability for its aggression, it will only reinforce a message that the international community has heard all too often: international law is binding on weaker states but a bargaining chip for stronger ones.
Such an outcome would embolden future aggressors, undermine the prohibition on the use of force, and weaken the fundamental system of international security established after World War II.
Therefore, a special tribunal is not a symbolic project. It is a practical legal mechanism designed to protect the principle that borders cannot be changed by force, and that political leaders cannot hide behind state authority when they authorize an illegal war.
There are already attempts to discredit this idea. Critics argue that the tribunal will be selective, politically motivated, or incompatible with international law. Such arguments must be taken seriously, but they should not serve as an excuse for inaction.
Every international court operates within a political context. This does not mean that its activities are illegitimate. The appropriate response must be to establish a tribunal with a clear legal basis, robust procedural safeguards, independent judges, protection of the right to a fair trial, and a credible institutional structure.
The alternative to this is not neutrality. The alternative is impunity.
This discussion also highlights a broader problem in international criminal justice. The ICC has long been criticized for its historical focus on situations in Africa. Such observations deserve respect: international justice cannot be credible if it is perceived as selective or as a system in which certain regions are under constant scrutiny, while the actions of powerful states go unchallenged.
However, the response to this should not be to weaken the ICC or further scale back the scope of its work. On the contrary, the universality of its mandate must be strengthened.
The ICC is not an “African court.” It was established to adjudicate the most serious crimes regardless of where they were committed, when national jurisdictions are unwilling or unable to carry out effective prosecutions of the perpetrators. Its legitimacy depends on its ability to demonstrate that its principles are applied in all regions and to all perpetrators, regardless of their geopolitical status.
Russia fully understands the political significance of this debate. Its influence in some parts of Africa is growing not only in the economic and military spheres, but also in diplomacy and the information sphere. By portraying international criminal justice as a Western political tool, Moscow is attempting to reinforce a broader narrative that accountability mechanisms are selective, colonial, and therefore can be dismissed.
This narrative holds sway precisely because it exploits real frustrations and historical grievances. European states cannot counter it with mere declarations of principles alone. They must demonstrate through consistent action that international law is not a tool used exclusively against political opponents.
Supporting accountability for crimes against Ukraine while simultaneously ignoring atrocities in other parts of the world will only weaken the cause they seek to defend.
Therefore, the future of the ICC and the future of the special tribunal on Ukraine are closely linked. Both mechanisms are based on the same principle: no leader should be above the law.
Sanctions against ICC officials, political attempts to limit the court’s jurisdiction, and campaigns aimed at undermining its authority are not merely technical disputes. They are attacks on the very idea that international crimes require an international response. If these attacks succeed, the consequences will extend far beyond Ukraine’s borders.
Ukraine’s fight for accountability is not just about the past. It defines the rules by which future wars will be fought. A credible special tribunal on the crime of aggression would demonstrate that the decision to launch a war of aggression is not beyond the reach of the law.
It would preserve the possibility that even the most powerful people who make such decisions will one day face justice.
Europe, Ukraine, and states committed to the international legal order must not allow this effort to be derailed. The ICC must be defended, reformed where necessary, and provided with the political support needed to fulfill its mandate.
At the same time, the special tribunal must move from political debate to institutional reality.
Justice may be delayed by war, force, and diplomacy. But they must not defeat it.
Source: Attorney Oleksiy Shevchuk
