36 countries approve creation of special Ukraine tribunal to prosecute Russia

Lead

Thirty-four European states, together with Australia, Costa Rica and the European Union, announced on Friday that they will join a future special tribunal to prosecute Russia for the crime of aggression stemming from its invasion of Ukraine. The decision, reached during a meeting of the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers, lays the groundwork for a judicial body that backers say will ensure accountability at the highest levels of the Russian government.

Coverage Comparison

Multiple outlets reported on the agreement with consistent details, though there are minor variations in how the participants were described. The three sources all confirmed that 34 European countries signed on, along with Australia, Costa Rica and the EU as an entity. All agreed that the tribunal will focus on the "crime of aggression," which is distinct from other war crimes. They also noted that the Council of Europe, not the European Union, was the organizing body.

One source, Deutsche Welle, emphasized the tribunal's purpose in covering acts beyond the International Criminal Court's existing jurisdiction, including the decision to launch the invasion. Another, France 24, highlighted that the ICC had already issued arrest warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin and four other officials over alleged child abductions. The South China Morning Post also mentioned the ICC warrants in its report. The three accounts agreed on the timeline: the plan has been in development since shortly after the invasion began in February 2022, and formal momentum began last year when President Volodymyr Zelensky signed an agreement with the Council of Europe.

Key Claims

• Thirty-four European states plus Australia, Costa Rica and the EU will join the special tribunal, according to all three reports. The sources did not provide a complete list of the 34 countries.
• The tribunal is designed to prosecute Russia for the crime of aggression, which one report clarified as covering the invasion's launch, not just battlefield conduct. That claim appears in the Deutsche Welle and France 24 reports, while the South China Morning Post did not specify the distinction.
• The Council of Europe's secretary general, Alain Berset, said: "The time for Russia to be held to account for its aggression is fast approaching." He added that the tribunal "represents justice and hope," and called for securing funding and functioning. The statement appeared in all three reports.
• Ukraine's Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha attended the event and called it "a historic day." He compared the tribunal to the Nuremberg trials, saying, "Just like the Nuremberg tribunal 80 years ago, this Special Tribunal in the Hague will restore justice from the ruins of war." This quote is included in the France 24 report but not the other two.
• The Netherlands has agreed to host the tribunal's initial phase in The Hague. This was stated by Dutch Foreign Minister Tom Berendsen, and appears in the France 24 report; it was not in the other two summaries.
• The Council of Europe has 46 member states, including EU members and non-EU states such as Turkey, the UK and Ukraine. All three reports noted this, with one adding that Russia was expelled in 2022 after the invasion. The expulsion fact is in the France 24 and South China Morning Post reports.

Perspectives

A key point of divergence concerns the tribunal's scope of crimes. The Deutsche Welle report described the tribunal as "designed to prosecute issues beyond the ICC's jurisdiction, such as the decision to launch the invasion." This is a legally significant distinction because the International Criminal Court, while it has issued arrest warrants against Putin and others for specific acts like child abduction, cannot prosecute the overarching crime of aggression in the context of Russia's actions because neither Russia nor Ukraine is a party to the ICC's Rome Statute in the relevant manner. The other two reports did not explicitly draw this comparison, but they did mention the ICC's existing warrants.

Another minor difference lies in the characterization of the progress. The South China Morning Post noted that the Council of Ministers "approved a resolution laying the groundwork" for the tribunal, without the "expressed their intention" language used in the other two reports. The precise stage of commitment—whether binding signature or formal expression of intent—could matter legally, but the sources presented it as a firm step.

None of the three reports suggested any dissent among the participating states, nor did they mention any opposition from Russia. The tone across all was factual, with some emotional quotes from officials, but no editorializing.