Why Ukraine gave up the idea of "hybrid" tribunal for Putin

Last week, the Office of the President of Ukraine posted news about the meeting of the Deputy Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, Iryna Mudra, with the Ambassador of Japan to Ukraine, which, however, the media left almost unnoticed.

However, it looks like this information was aimed not at Japanese or even Ukrainian readers, but at some European officials and diplomats. European Pravda can assure you that they have received this signal.

Ukraine announced two key principles on which a special tribunal for the crime of aggression, which the media and politicians informally call the "tribunal for Putin," must be based. 

Read more about Ukraine's shift regarding the "tribunal for Putin" and the process of its creation in the article by Sergiy Sydorenko, European Pravda's editor – Ukraine lays down two principles for future "tribunal for Putin."

The tribunal is intended to eliminate a gap in international criminal law. According to international norms, aggression is a crime. This crime is the simplest to prove, but there is no effective punishment. 

To address this problem, Ukraine and partner states have been negotiating the creation of a special tribunal for the crime of aggression since 2022. However, the success of these negotiations has been limited, which is why the government has publicly acknowledged the lack of practical progress on the tribunal.

Everyone agrees that a tribunal for Putin is needed, but they cannot agree on how it should look.

The reason for the delay is no secret: the issue is that several Western states, Ukraine's key partners (including the USA, the UK, France, etc.), also pursue an aggressive international policy. Of course, there can be no question of equating their actions with those of Russia.

Therefore, these capitals approach the issue very cautiously to ensure that the mechanism found is not potentially applied against them.

Ukraine has been insisting from the beginning that the tribunal for Putin must be an international body created by a UN decision, bypassing the Security Council. 

Instead, Western states are promoting a scheme called a hybrid tribunal, or, formally, an internationalised tribunal.

Ukraine has never liked the "hybrid" option, but pressured by the West, Kyiv publicly agreed to it. 

In August 2023, the then Deputy Head of the Office of the President Andriy Smyrnov publicly announced such sacquiescence was subject to certain conditions.

Last year, when Ukraine agreed to consider a hybrid tribunal, Kyiv simultaneously informed its partners that it didn't think it possible to create a tribunal if it couldn't overcome the "troika" immunities.

Smyrnov no longer works for the Office of the President, which assures they "had never agreed" to consider the hybrid option, which assures they "had never agreed" to consider the hybrid option. And the statement of his successor Iryna Mudra publicly fixes a new position: an internationalised tribunal cannot be the subject of discussion.

There was another discussion on this issue at the Core Group meeting in early March in Vienna, where representatives of EU institutions put forward another idea of a hybrid tribunal with legal caveats that as long as Putin, Lavrov, etc., hold positions, they cannot be prosecuted.

So, it turns out that Ukraine's move regarding the hybrid tribunal led to negotiations that resulted in a format for a new court that does not meet Ukraine's expectations.

Kyiv now insists on an "exclusively international" tribunal, which will be created as a separate international organisation and will not be part of the Ukrainian judicial system. And this time, it looks like Kyiv's position is about principle.

In addition to the body’s status, Kyiv has a principle regarding its powers: "There can be no personal immunity for the highest officials of the aggressor state."