What is the special tribunal for Ukraine that world leaders have backed?

News

What is the special tribunal for Ukraine that world leaders have backed?

2025-05-09 23:02 Last Updated At：23:10

KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — Some 40 world leaders announced their support Friday for the creation of a new international court to prosecute those most responsible for Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

The special tribunal aims to target senior Russian leaders for the “crime of aggression," which underpins the countless war crimes Ukraine accuses Russian forces of committing since the start of the war in 2022.

Because Russia is not a member of the International Criminal Court, it cannot prosecute Russian President Vladimir Putin and other senior leaders for starting the conflict. Ukrainian and European leaders came up with the special tribunal as an alternative way to hold Russian leaders to account.

The court will be formed following a joint agreement between Ukraine and the Council of Europe, the continent's top human rights organization.

Since early in the conflict, Kyiv has been pushing for the creation of a special tribunal that goes beyond prosecuting war crimes that Ukraine alleged Russian forces committed — including bombing civilian infrastructure, killing civilians, rape, taking hostages and torture. Russia denies those claims.

“If we want true justice, we should not look for excuses and should not refer to the shortcomings of the current international law but make bold decisions that will correct those shortcomings that unfortunately exist in international law,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said during a visit to the Netherlands in 2023.

Similar special tribunals were established after World War II, the Balkan wars sparked by the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia and the 1994 Rwandan genocide.

The institution will be funded by the countries who back it, known as the Core Group, including the Netherlands, Japan and Canada. The United States had backed the project under former President Joe Biden, but President Donald Trump's administration did not support the initiative.

On Friday, Ukraine’s Foreign Ministry said in a joint statement with foreign ministers from some 40 countries that technical legal work necessary to establish the tribunal is complete. It added that the court will be formalized at a Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in Luxembourg later this month.

The statement was agreed in the presence of EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas in Lviv, in western Ukraine.

Once established the tribunal will focus on prosecuting Russian leaders most responsible for the full-scale invasion of Ukraine that began in 2022.

Kyiv has been pushing for the creation of a special tribunal since early in the conflict.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Friday Moscow “will not be reacting” to the tribunal announcement.

The legal framework for the project was agreed on by leaders in February.

The crime of aggression is the planning and execution of a large-scale military invasion of another country.

“The crime of aggression is sometimes referred to as the ‘mother of all other crimes’ because it precedes all of the other crimes, war crimes, crimes against humanity, even genocide," Iva Vukusic, an international law expert at the University of Utrecht, told The Associated Press.

“You don’t prosecute foot soldiers for aggression,” she added. The tribunal plans to pursue cases against around 20 to 30 high-ranking officials.

A dozen Nazi leaders including Hermann Göring and Rudolf Hess were convicted of what was then called “a crime against peace” during the Nuremberg trials following WWII. That was the last time anyone has been convicted of aggression.

International law grants the so-called troika — consisting of a country’s head of state, head of government and foreign affairs minister — immunity from prosecution while they are in office.

However, the tribunal could initiate proceedings against Putin and wait until he leaves office to move forward with a trial. There is no statute of limitation on the crime of aggression.

The court will have the power to hold trials in absentia, though anyone convicted without being in the custody of the tribunal would have the right to a retrial.

The move to create a special tribunal aims to fill a void created by limitations on the ICC. While The Hague-based court can go after Russian nationals for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, it cannot prosecute Russians for orchestrating the invasion itself.

The 2002 Rome Statute which created the court was amended in 2010 to include the crime of aggression — but only for countries that have joined the court. The Russian Federation is not a member state.

The court has issued an arrest warrant for Putin for war crimes, accusing him of personal responsibility for the abductions of children from Ukraine, as well as five other officials.

The Hague, already home to the ICC, the top court of the United Nations and other judicial institutions, has been suggested as a location but a final decision has not yet been made.

The city is already home to the International Center for Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression, which supports evidence-gathering and is overseen by the European Union’s judicial cooperation agency, Eurojust. The Council of Europe-backed register of damages, which allows Ukrainian victims of war to catalog the financial harm they have suffered, is also based in the Netherlands.

Backers are hopeful the institution will be up and running by early next year.

Red lines and increasing self-censorship reshape Hong Kong's once freewheeling press scene

HONG KONG (AP) — From 18th place to 140th. That's how much Hong Kong's ranking plunged in a global press freedom index over some 20 years.

Behind the decline are the shutdown of pro-democracy newspaper Apple Daily, more red lines for journalists and increasing self-censorship across the territory. The erosion of press freedom parallels a broader curtailment of the city's Western-style civil liberties since 2020, when Beijing imposed a national security law to eradicate challenges to its rule.

Apple Daily founder Jimmy Lai was convicted in December under the security law, facing up to life in prison. Hearings began Monday for Lai and other defendants in the case to argue for a shorter sentence.

His trial has been watched closely by foreign governments and political observers as a barometer of media freedom in the former British colony, which returned to Chinese rule in 1997. The government insists that his case has nothing to do with press freedom.

Hong Kong's media environment was once freewheeling. Journalists often asked the government aggressive questions even as the owners of their outlets were pro-Beijing. News outlets regularly broke stories critical of politicians and officials.

But the space for reporters has drastically narrowed after China imposed the security law, which it deemed necessary for stability after huge anti-government protests in 2019.

In 2020, Lai became one of the first prominent figures charged under the law. Within a year, authorities used the same law to arrest senior executives of Apple Daily. They raided its office and froze $2.3 million of its assets, effectively forcing the newspaper to shut down in June 2021.

Online news site Stand News met a similar fate in December of that year, with arrests, police raids and asset freezes forcing its shutdown. By 2022, Hong Kong had plunged 68 places to 148th in the press-freedom index compiled by media freedom organization Reporters Without Borders.

In 2024, two Stand News editors became the first journalists since 1997 to be convicted of conspiracy to publish seditious articles under a separate, colonial-era law.

In December, Lai was found guilty of conspiring with others to collude with foreign forces and conspiracy to publish seditious articles. Six Apple Daily executives charged in the same case had entered guilty pleas, admitting they conspired with Lai to request sanctions, blockades or engage in other hostile activities against Hong Kong or China.

Francis Lee, a journalism and communication professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, said the Apple Daily and Stand News cases indicate that some common news practices of the past are no longer permitted. The Stand News case showed that some strongly critical commentaries with relatively intense expression might be considered seditious, he said. Lai's case involved allegations of calling for foreign sanctions.

“Maybe some advocacy journalism was at least permitted within the legal framework back then," he said, referring to before the security law was introduced. “Today, it’s no longer allowed.”

Self-censorship has become more prominent, but not only because of politics. Lee said mainstream news outlets face greater pressure not to upset their vital revenue streams, including advertisers and big companies, amid a difficult business environment.

Many large companies in the city value the vast mainland Chinese market and ties with the government.

Finding interviewees is not easy, either. “In Hong Kong nowadays, when some topics and perspectives cannot be reported, it's not just because of media outlets practicing self-censorship," Lee said. “No one is willing to speak. Self-censorship is a broad social phenomenon."

Many opposition politicians and leading activists were jailed under the security law. Dozens of civil society groups closed down. Facing potential risks, some residents also became more reluctant to talk to reporters.

Hong Kong Journalists Association chairperson Selina Cheng said many stories perceived to be politically sensitive or potentially questioning the authorities are not always easily published. There is an outsized concern over including responses from the government and pro-China groups to create balance, she said.

“To do journalism in Hong Kong means that people always have to worry at the back of their heads: What are the risks that they may get involved in?” said Cheng.

A massive fire that killed at least 161 people in an apartment complex in late November revealed some of these shifts.

After the fire broke out on Nov. 26, reporters, including those from newer online outlets, went out in force to cover Hong Kong’s deadliest blaze in decades. They interviewed affected residents, investigated scaffolding nettings that authorities said had contributed to the blaze's rapid spread, and reported on concerns over the government’s oversight.

Cheng was encouraged by the coverage of the aftermath. But warnings and arrests followed.

Beijing’s national security arm in Hong Kong summoned representatives of several foreign news outlets, including The Associated Press, on Dec. 6. The Office for Safeguarding National Security said some foreign media had spread false information and smeared the government’s relief efforts after the fire and attacked the legislative election.

After arrests of non-journalists who posted allegedly seditious content online or organized a petition, public voices grew quieter, leaving reporters with fewer interviewees, Lee said.

A planned news conference related to the fire, organized by people including former pro-democracy district councilors, was canceled. Bruce Liu, an organizer, was summoned by police for a meeting the same day. An investigative report on the maintenance project by a pro-Beijing newspaper is no longer viewable on its website.

Ellie Yuen, who wrote a social media post questioning regulators’ oversight that went viral, said she stopped posting about the fire for “obvious reasons” without elaborating.

Cheng raised concerns over what she called the “more covert muscling of people speaking out."

“If this keeps happening, then it’s much harder for the public to know what they’re missing out on," she said.

In an emailed reply to the AP's questions, the government strongly condemned attempts to use the fire as an excuse to smear the administration with baseless accusations.

“Human rights and freedoms of Hong Kong residents have all along been firmly protected by the constitution and the Basic Law,” it said.

Beyond reporting restrictions, Cheng’s trade union previously raised concerns about some journalists facing unwarranted tax audits and harassment through anonymous messages. The Inland Revenue Department has maintained that the background of a taxpayer has no bearing on its reviews.

Cheng has launched a lawsuit against her former employer, The Wall Street Journal, for allegedly firing her over her union role.

Both Cheng and Lee said journalists are still learning to survive in the narrowing space.

In October, Cheng’s association showed journalists’ ratings of the city’s press-freedom index rebounded slightly.

“Today’s situation is far from the previous state of freedom," Lee said. “Self-censorship throughout society is severe. Yet some media outlets are still finding ways.”