Three years have passed since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and the list of alleged international crimes continues to grow: torture and killing of civilians, deportation of children, ill-treatment of prisoners of war, sexual violence, and attacks on civilian infrastructure, among others. But what has been done to achieve justice? Despite strong statements from Ukraine’s allies about seeking justice, concrete legal actions outside Ukraine and the International Criminal Court (ICC) remain limited. Universal jurisdiction (UJ) offers a potential path to justice, but its use has been less than desirable. This article examines the legal avenues available and the challenges in prosecuting these crimes.
Domestic Prosecution in Ukraine
Since the war began, reports of serious crimes by Russian forces have emerged. As of February 2025, Ukraine itself has launched over 151,000 war crimes investigations and has tried more than 100 alleged perpetrators, mostly in absentia; meaning the defendant is not present during the trial. Nonetheless, these efforts are still far from achieving justice for the enormous number of crimes. Furthermore, Ukraine has a limited legal framework, a lack of resources and human capital and a lack of experience and expertise in prosecuting war criminals. Not to mention the fact that it is fighting an ongoing war. Additionally, trials in absentia raise concerns about fair trial rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Jurisdiction of the ICC
The ICC has jurisdiction over war crimes and crimes against humanity in Ukraine, but lacks authority over the crime of aggression against Russia, as Russia is not a party to the Rome Statute. A UN Security Council referral could enable prosecution, but Russia’s veto power blocks this path. Despite these obstacles, the ICC has issued six arrest warrants, including one for Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Universal Jurisdiction
However, these efforts alone cannot ensure full accountability. That is why the avenue of universal jurisdiction (UJ) should be explored more actively. UJ may be applied to certain crimes that are of such magnitude that they pose a threat to the entire global order and thus cannot be tolerated. A state does not need to have any link to the crime for it to exercise universal jurisdiction. In 2022, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe called on states to use UJ to prosecute criminals. Several countries, including fourteen EU states, Canada, and the U.S., have started their own war crimes investigations. These mainly consist of collected testimonies. However, most cases remain in their early stages, and many states focus on crimes involving their own nationals rather than purely applying UJ. Germany, the U.S., Lithuania, and France have made progress, but primarily in cases with direct links to their citizens rather than in cases based solely on UJ.
Challenges
One major challenge is that most suspects remain in Russia, making their arrest or extradition nearly impossible. Another issue is the complexity of UJ laws: some countries require suspects to be present on their territory before charges can be filed, or even before an investigation can be started.
Strengthening cooperation between countries, improving UJ laws, and supporting Ukraine’s justice system with expertise and resources are all essential steps to ensure justice for these war crimes. Furthermore, many have called for a special tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine, which would allow for the prosecution of senior Russian officials for planning and coordinating the invasion. The Netherlands has even offered to host such a tribunal.
Without these steps, accountability remains limited. States must act with more urgency and commitment, ensuring that war criminals, no matter where they are, will face justice.
Sources:
https://apnews.com/article/eu-europe-ukraine-russia-court-war-4f0012e735e7968390a7eb2c0c331561