Support COE Special Tribunal on Russian Aggression against Ukraine

Support COE Special Tribunal on Russian Aggression against Ukraine

Ambassador Curtis A. Ward

(22 July 2025) — The International Criminal Court (ICC), while having within its jurisdiction the crime of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the “crime of aggression”, and has already issued indictments against Russia’s president Vladimir Putin on war crimes violations, the ICC has not issued an indictment against Putin for the international crime of aggression. Yet, according to the ICCs explanation, the crime of aggression means “the planning, preparation, initiation or execution of of an act of using armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State.” Seems there is a case to be made against Putin.

The ICC further explains, “The act of aggression includes,  among other things, invasion, military occupation and annexation by the use of force, blockade of the ports or coasts if it is considered being by its character, gravity and scale a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.” Ample evidence exists for us to conclude the presence of these acts with Russia’s invasion and occupation of Ukraine.

Accountability for acts of aggression

The act of aggression is by a person under the Statute of Rome. That means Russian President Vladimir Putin may be charged with aggression against Ukraine and be held accountable. The United Nations General Assembly has already overwhelmingly agreed that violations of aggression have occurred by Russia’s illegal invasion and occupation of Ukraine.

In as much as the ICC has not acted against the Russian leader by bringing a charge of aggression, the Council of Europe-Ukraine (COE-Ukraine) agreement to establish the Council of Europe’s Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine (COE-Ukraine Special Tribunal) creates a new dynamic in finding perpetrators of the act of aggression, such as Putin, accountable for the crimes committed by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Putin is therefore appropriately targeted by this COE initiative.

By establishing the COE-Ukraine Special Tribunal the COE plugs a gaping omission in the response of the ICC perhaps constrained by international dynamics to the Russia-Ukraine war, including Russia’s permanent membership in the UN Security Council.  The COE’s landmark decision must be applauded and supported by the international community in support of accountability and in seeking justice for the people of Ukraine.

 Protecting the vulnerable

This important action by the COE has the potential of discouraging other rogue leaders of powerful countries from engaging in aggression against weaker countries. It is a welcomed initiative for the enforcement of international criminal law. Leaders of powerful countries should be aware that the international community of law-abiding countries will hold them personally accountable for their crimes.

There is precedent for holding leaders accountable. The United Nations Security Council in response to the genocides in Rwanda in 1994 and in Srebrenica during the Balkans wars of the 1990s, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), respectively, as well as the atrocities which occurred in Sierra Leone (1991-2002) and the Khmer Rouge massacres in Cambodia (1970s), established international and hybrid special tribunals to hold rogue leaders accountable. The ICC was established as a permanent criminal court in part to ensure that rogue political and military leaders would be held accountable. Often, resistance to the ICC jurisdiction by certain powerful countries has constrained its actions and capacity to act.

The COE Special Tribunal, without similar constraints as this European entity has European jurisdiction rather than as an international court with global jurisdiction, specifically targets leaders of countries engaged in the illegal act of aggression in Europe. It has a mandate to respond to aggression in its geographic space. The COE action sounds a warning to leaders of other countries that similar actions could be taken by other regional groupings. Thus, no leader anywhere is above the law — international criminal law—and could be held accountable.

Caribbean leaders — decades of leadership

Caribbean governments should be onboard with the COE’s decision and, either individually or collectively as CARICOM, express solidarity with the COE. There should be no equivocation or ambivalence among Caribbean leaders on this issue. Too often they squat on the sidelines misguided by the assumption that it is not their fight. They seem to view many international issues, including egregious actions seemingly a long distance from their shores, through narrow domestic lenses. They are often wrong and ultimately set themselves up to be on the wrong side of moral history.

It was not always this way with Caribbean leaders. The leaders of the past were noted for their defense of international laws and norms. They were not afraid to stand on principles. Lest we forget, it was Jamaica’s Norman Manley as premier of Jamaica who imposed a trade boycott on apartheid South Africa, the second Commonwealth country to do so with India being the first. Manley also imposed a visa ban. It was Jamaica’s Hugh Shearer who, at the United Nations in 1963, raised the issue of recognizing human rights with an international day of celebration, thus bringing the issue of adherence to the protection of human rights into focus.

Nor should we forget it was Trinidad and Tobago’s A. N. R. Robinson, who in 1989, issued a call at the United Nations for the establishment of a permanent international criminal court to hold individuals accountable for their international criminal behavior. This led to the establishment of the ICC. Four Caribbean leaders — Michael Manley (Jamaica), Forbes Burnham (Guyana), Eric Williams (Trinidad and Tobago), and Errol Barrow (Barbados) — defied western powers to establish diplomatic relations with Cuba in December 1972, and Manley who bucked international trend to establish diplomatic relations with China in November 1972.

Beginning with Norman Manley and continuing with Sir Alexander Bustamante’s open rejection of association with a South African leader at a Commonwealth Leader’s Summit in London, and Jamaica’s continuing and unceasing leadership of global anti-apartheid advocacy which helped lead to the demise of South Africa’s apartheid system.

At the dawn of this century, Jamaica’s P.J. Patterson used diplomatic leverage to gain the UNGA’s overwhelming support to elect Jamaica to the UN Security Council with a mission dedicated to pursuing an end to conflicts in Africa and elsewhere, and for the international community to increase humanitarian assistance and protection of civilians in armed conflict in war-torn Africa and elsewhere, as well as for accountability for egregious war crimes — fully supporting the ICTR and ICTY, and the establishment of the Special Court on Sierra Leone during Jamaica’s term on the UN Security Council. It was also under Patterson’s leadership and Jamaica’s presidency and advocacy that the UN Security Council established the framework for donor countries assistance to developing countries’ counter-terrorism capacity building, following the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States. Patterson’s team at the UN also elevated the protection of women and children in armed conflict on the Council’s agenda during Jamaica’s tenure.

The COE sets new precedent for accountability

The COE by targeting the political leader of Russia, a powerful permanent member of the UN Security Council which uses its veto power to avoid accountability, sets a new precedent, holding the untouchables accountable. Putin-led Russia has been deemed to have committed and continues to commit the international crime of aggression against Ukraine, and the COE’s action has the effect of increasing protection of militarily weak and powerless countries in other parts of the world. Important benefits could accrue to vulnerable countries around the world — primarily accountability of powerful states for violating their sovereignty and territorial integrity. No panacea, and protection is not absolute, but it   sends a warning to powerful leaders of powerful countries, and, importantly, to rogue leaders of states with a military advantage over neighboring states who engage in or threaten aggression to further a primarily domestic political agenda — defying international laws and norms.

Warning to Maduro

The threatened use of aggression by Venezuela’s Nicholas Maduro against neighboring Guyana, a member of CARICOM, should be impetus for Caribbean leaders to support the COE’s initiative. Hence the individual and collective responsibilities of Caribbean leaders to support the COE initiative. Success of this special tribunal is imperative for holding other aggressors accountable, including in Latin America and the Caribbean — a warning to Venezuela’s Maduro.

© Curtis A. Ward/The Ward Post