Justice for the crime of aggression – the Special Tribunal must put Ukrainian victims center stage

The ‘Empty Dock’ Dilemma: Why Global Justice is Shifting Beyond the Jail Cell

For decades, the gold standard of international justice was simple: arrest the perpetrator, put them in a glass booth, and deliver a verdict. But as the geopolitical landscape shifts, the world is discovering that waiting for a high-profile dictator to walk into a courtroom is often a recipe for stagnation.

The recent establishment of the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine marks a pivotal evolution in how the international community handles the “supreme international crime.” Because the International Criminal Court (ICC) lacks jurisdiction over the specific crime of aggression a new mechanism is required to hold the architects of invasion accountable.

However, this brings us to a contentious crossroads: the rise of in absentia trials—legal proceedings where the defendant is not present. While critics dismiss these as expensive symbolic gestures, a deeper look at global trends suggests they are becoming essential tools for survivor empowerment and historical truth.

Beyond the Verdict: The Psychology of Recognition

The primary argument against in absentia trials is financial and practical. Opponents often point to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), which spent roughly a billion dollars over 15 years and delivered convictions without ever capturing a fugitive.

But measuring justice solely by “bodies in cells” ignores the profound psychological impact on victims. Consider the Rohingya survivors who testified at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in early 2026. For many, the act of testifying in a world court was not about the immediate imprisonment of the Myanmar military, but about the global recognition of their suffering.

When victims are given a platform to speak, the trial transforms from a mere criminal proceeding into a historical record. In the case of Ukraine, the Tribunal offers a way to bypass the “safe havens” where Russian officials hide, ensuring that the narrative of the aggression is codified in law today, rather than decades from now.

The Shift Toward Survivor-Centered Justice

Future trends in international law are moving away from a “prosecutor-led” model toward a “survivor-centered” approach. This involves several key shifts:

• Broadening the Victim Profile: Moving beyond those who suffered specific war crimes to include those displaced by aggression or soldiers killed in the line of duty.
• Safe Testimony: Utilizing closed courtrooms and advanced protections for the most vulnerable, including children and survivors of sexual violence.
• Group Representation: Allowing civil society organizations to represent thousands of victims simultaneously to avoid a “hierarchy of suffering.”

Redefining the ‘Victim’ in Modern Warfare

One of the most significant trends we are seeing is the expansion of who is considered a “victim” of aggression. Traditionally, international law has a narrow view: soldiers are seen as legitimate targets, and those who flee a war zone without being directly attacked may not fit the strict definition of a war crime victim.

However, the push for the Special Tribunal suggests a new paradigm. There is a growing argument that anyone whose life was upended by the act of aggression itself—including the millions of displaced Ukrainians—is a victim of the crime. This holistic approach ensures that justice isn’t just for those who survived a torture chamber, but for everyone whose fundamental right to life and security was violated by a state’s decision to invade.

By including claims dating back to 2014, the Tribunal also avoids the pitfall of ignoring early victims, signaling that the “crime” is a continuous process of aggression rather than a single event in 2022.

The Future of Accountability: A Multi-Layered Landscape

We are entering an era where no single court can deliver total justice. Instead, we will see a “justice ecosystem” consisting of:

1. National Courts: Handling immediate, evidence-rich war crimes trials.
2. The ICC: Focusing on specific atrocities and genocide.
3. Special Tribunals: Targeting the high-level political architects of aggression.
4. The ICJ: Resolving state-to-state disputes over treaty violations.

This multi-layered approach ensures that even if a head of state remains out of reach, the legal framework for their responsibility is locked in. This creates a “legal shadow” that restricts their movement and legitimacy on the world stage indefinitely.

Frequently Asked Questions