This article provides a comprehensive legal analysis of the normative foundations underlying the Council of Europe Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine, established as an institutional response to the full-scale armed aggression by the Russian Federation. The research focuses on a critical examination of the provisions of the Tribunal’s Statute (the “Schuman Statute”), its jurisdictional boundaries, institutional architecture, and procedural mechanisms through the lens of compliance with international criminal law, European Convention on Human Rights standards, and European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence.

The methodological framework of the study encompasses comparative legal analysis, doctrinal interpretation of international legal instruments, a systematic approach to examining the interaction between national and international jurisdictions, and critical analysis of recent ECtHR practice in cases related to Russian aggression against Ukraine.

The principal findings of the research reveal conceptual inconsistencies in the normative construction of the Statute, particularly regarding the conflation of the crime of aggression with aggressive war, insufficient alignment of procedural guarantees with Article 6 ECHR requirements, and limited effectiveness of the Tribunal in the context of absent universal recognition and extradition complexities. The study identifies risks of legal populism and nihilism manifested in the creation of an alternative justice model outside established universal mechanisms.

Special attention is devoted to analyzing the landmark ECtHR judgment in Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia (2025), which for the first time establishes direct responsibility of the Russian Federation for control over occupied territories and armed formations, creating a robust evidentiary foundation for future criminal prosecutions.

Practical recommendations include a proposal for adopting a special Law of Ukraine on International Cooperation in Criminal Justice, which would comprehensively regulate the interaction of national authorities with international tribunals, ensure legal certainty, and enhance the effectiveness of implementing Ukraine’s international obligations. The necessity for systematic reform of Ukraine’s Criminal Procedure Code to adapt it to international criminal procedure requirements is substantiated.

The conclusions emphasize the need for a balanced approach to developing international criminal justice that combines the pursuit of justice with adherence to procedural legitimacy and systematic integration with existing mechanisms. The authors stress the importance of ensuring the Special Tribunal’s compliance with ECHR standards, principles of legal profession independence under the new Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of the Legal Profession, and the necessity of preventing fragmentation of international law through the creation of parallel jurisdictions.

Bibliography

Edited books

1. Gray C, Sanger A, ‘The Use of Force and the International Legal Order’, in M D Evans (ed), International Law (Oxford University Press 2020) 846–870.

Journal articles

2. Glusman G M, ‘Justice from the General Assembly: An International Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression in Ukraine’ [2024] 3(1) Chicago Journal of International Law 117–148.

3. Korynevych A, Senatorova O, Shepitko M, ‘Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression in International and Ukrainian Jurisdiction: Challenges and Prospects’ [2023] 43 Polish Yearbook of International Law 367–379.

4. Morris M, ‘High Crimes and Misconceptions: The ICC and Non-party States’ [2001] 64 Law and Contemporary Problems 38.

5. Weiner A, ‘The Russia-Ukraine Conflict: Obstacles to Accountability’ [2023] 62(3) Brandeis Law Journal 245–274.

6. Drozdov O, Drozdova O, Kovtun V, ‘Prezumptsiia nevynuvatosti yak aksiolohichnyi i normatyvnyi fenomen: kontseptualnyi analiz yevropeiskoi pretsedentnoi praktyky’ [2024] 12 Pravo Ukrainy 115–147 (in Ukrainian).

7. Drozdov O, Kovtun V, ‘Liubliansko-Haazka konventsiia: nudum jus v sferi mizhnarodnoho spivrobitnytstva chy dovhoochikuvanyi hlobalnyi proryv?’ [2023] 11 Yurydychnyi naukovyi elektronnyi zhurnal 628–642 (in Ukrainian).

8. Liashchenko A, ‘Kryterii vyznachennia poniattia “ahresyvna viina” u kryminalnomu pravi Ukrainy’ [2023] 4 Chasopys Kyivskoho universytetu prava 213–217 (in Ukrainian).

9. Pashkov V, ‘U zaruchnykakh heopolityky: problema stvorennia mizhnarodnoho trybunalu shchodo zlochynu ahresii rf proty Ukrainy’ [2024] 96 Derzhava i pravo: Yurydychni i politychni nauky 394 (in Ukrainian).

Conference papers

10. Harashchuk V, ‘Keruvannia ta kontrol za politychnymy chy viiskovymy diiamy derzhavy yak oznaka spetsialnoho sub’iekta zlochynu ahresii’, SBU v umovakh viiny v Ukraini: suchasni realii ta innovatsiini stratehii zabezpechennia natsionalnoi bezpeky: materialy mizhnarodnoi naukovo-praktychnoi konferentsii. 4–5 lypnia 2024 roku (Alerta 2024) 13–14 (in Ukrainian).

Websites

11. Keshkentii D, ‘Special Tribunal for the Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine: Analysis of the Statute, Comparison with Historical and Contemporary International Courts, Examination of the Detention of Accused Persons, and the Impact of the UN Charter and UN and EU Resolutions’ (SSRN, June 29, 2025) <https:// papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5338738> (accessed 15.07.2025).

12. Scheffer D J, ‘Developments at Rome Treaty Conference’ (Testimony Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Washington, DC, July 23, 1998) <https://1997-2001.state.gov/ policy_remarks/1998/980723_scheffer_icc.html> (accessed 15.07.2025).

13. Verbruggen Y, ‘How Russia’s Aggression is Revitalising International Criminal Justice’ (International Bar Association, 22 May 2023) <https://www.ibanet.org/How-russiasaggressionis-revitalising-international-criminaljustice> (accessed 15.07.2025)