Justice for Ukraine: Can Russia Be Held Accountable for the Crime of Aggression?
Ukraine isn’t just fighting Russia on the battlefield—it’s also making the case in court. From international tribunals to new legal initiatives, Kyiv is determined to hold Russia accountable for its war. But will justice prevail?
The full-scale invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation on February 24, 2022, marked a critical turning point in the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian war, which began in 2014. The illegal annexation of Crimea and the hybrid war in Donbas were merely a prelude to an open assault that violated fundamental principles of international law.
In the face of enormous human and material losses, Kyiv has intensified its legal efforts against Moscow, seeking to hold it accountable for military aggression through international courts.
The significance of these legal proceedings cannot be overstated: they not only provide a judicial assessment of the aggressor’s actions but also serve as a means to document historical truth regarding mass crimes committed against Ukrainians.
Who Will Prosecute Russia? Key Players in the Fight for Justice
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) plays a crucial role in establishing the fact of aggression. Even before 2022, Ukraine had filed complaints against Russia for violating the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.
However, with the onset of full-scale invasion, the focus has shifted to proving Russia’s unlawful use of force and its systematic attacks on civilian infrastructure. Kyiv is demanding urgent measures, including a formal recognition of Russia’s armed aggression and a court order requiring Moscow to cease its violations.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague has expanded its jurisdiction to investigate alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed after February 24, 2022. The prospect of individual criminal liability for Russian commanders and high-ranking officials increases pressure on Moscow.
Even though Russia does not formally recognize the ICC’s jurisdiction, issuing international arrest warrants remains a powerful tool of political influence. Additionally, Ukraine has submitted multiple interstate complaints to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), highlighting large-scale violations of civilian rights, as well as the deliberate targeting of residential areas, hospitals, and schools.
National Mechanisms and a Special Tribunal
Ukraine is not relying solely on international platforms. Domestically, its courts have launched hundreds of criminal cases against Russian military and political figures suspected of planning and executing aggression, as well as atrocities in occupied territories.
While many of these cases are being prosecuted in absentia, they contribute to a robust body of evidence that could be utilized in future international trials or shared with foreign law enforcement agencies.
A particularly notable initiative is Kyiv’s push for creating a Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression, designed to complement the ICC’s work.
Ukraine has been actively advocating for this tribunal among its Western partners, arguing that a dedicated mechanism is necessary to bring Russia’s top leadership to justice. Given Russia’s permanent seat on the UN Security Council—which allows it to veto critical decisions—establishing a separate tribunal appears to be the most viable path toward ensuring accountability for aggression.
Challenges on the Way to Justice
The aggressor deliberately sabotages any legal procedures, trying to discredit the decisions of international courts and refusing to comply with their requirements. Delays in trials and endless motions for “lack of jurisdiction” are typical tactics. International bodies are limited in their coercive powers, especially against a nuclear weapon state.
However, sanctions, asset freezes, and political pressure may force Moscow to take a more balanced approach. The work of the courts is slower than the fighting, and the evidence base is only growing. After the liberation of the occupied territories, more and more evidence of crimes has been recorded, which Ukraine has been carefully documenting.
Geopolitical Impact and Future Reparations
Despite the difficulties, Ukraine’s legal battle against Russia has strategic and symbolic significance. First, every precedent in the international arena confirms that Moscow has violated fundamental norms by provoking the largest armed conflict in Europe in decades.
Secondly, court decisions can become the basis for a system of reparations and compensation that will sooner or later have to be agreed upon in order to rebuild the destroyed Ukrainian cities and villages. The larger the trials, the greater the threat of arrest for Russian officials in countries that recognize the ICC verdicts.
The judicial sphere is an integral part of Ukraine's resistance to full-scale aggression. Appeals to the International Court of Justice, the ICC, the ECHR, and the initiation of domestic criminal proceedings create a legal framework that complements Kyiv's military and diplomatic efforts.
As a matter of fact, the accumulation of evidence and official verdicts on war crimes could eventually have a tangible effect on both Russia and the international community. If global actors show cohesion, court decisions will become the basis for real reparations and punishment of the perpetrators. That is why Ukraine continues to advance on the legal front, proving that even in the most difficult conditions, the rule of law remains more potent than the threats of the aggressor state.
Bohdan Popov, Expert at Kyiv-based United Ukraine Think Tank