VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY  

                 Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is actively advocating for the creation of a **special international tribunal** dedicated to prosecuting **Russian leadership** (specifically President Vladimir Putin and other top officials) for the **crime of aggression** against Ukraine. Here's a breakdown of the situation:

1.  The Core Issue: The Crime of Aggression

    *   The 2022 full-scale invasion is considered by Ukraine and most of the international community as the **supreme international crime**: the crime of aggression (waging a war of aggression).

    *   This crime inherently involves **state leadership** – those who planned, prepared, initiated, or executed the aggressive act.

2.  The Problem with Existing Courts (ICC):

    *   The International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague *can* prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide committed *within* Ukraine.

    *   **However, the ICC currently *cannot* prosecute the crime of aggression against Russia.** This is because:

        *   Russia is not a member of the ICC (it withdrew in 2016).

        *   The UN Security Council (where Russia has veto power) did not refer the situation to the ICC regarding aggression.

        *   The ICC's jurisdiction over aggression requires either the aggressor state to be an ICC member *or* a UNSC referral (neither applies here).

3.  Zelenskyy's Proposed Solution: A Special Tribunal

    *   To overcome this legal gap, Zelenskyy and Ukraine are pushing for a **new, dedicated international tribunal**.

    *   **Goal:** To specifically indict and try **Russian political and military leaders** (like Putin, Security Council members, Defense Minister, Chief of General Staff) for the crime of aggression.

    *   **Nature:** This tribunal would likely be established through an international agreement involving Ukraine and supportive nations (like the EU, G7, etc.), potentially endorsed by the UN General Assembly (where Russia has no veto).

4.  Why Zelenskyy is Pushing This:

    *   **Accountability at the Highest Level:** Seeks justice for the foundational crime that enabled all subsequent atrocities (war crimes, crimes against humanity).

    *   **Deterrence:** Aims to send a powerful message that leaders who launch aggressive wars will be held personally responsible, deterring future acts of aggression globally.

    *   **Moral & Legal Principle:** Upholds the Nuremberg principle that "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression... is a crime against international peace."

    *   **Justice for Ukraine:** Provides a specific avenue for holding the architects of the invasion accountable, separate from prosecutions for crimes committed on the ground.

    *   **International Legitimacy:** Demonstrates that the invasion is condemned as illegal by the international community through a formal judicial process.

5.  Key Features of the Proposed Tribunal:

    *   **Focus:** Solely on the crime of aggression committed by Russian leadership against Ukraine.

    *   **Complementarity:** Would work alongside the ICC (which focuses on other crimes) and Ukrainian courts (prosecuting lower-level perpetrators and some higher-level ones in absentia).

    *   **Location:** Likely based internationally (e.g., The Hague).

    *   **Funding & Support:** Reliant on voluntary contributions and political will from supporting nations.

6.  Challenges & Controversies:

    *   **Jurisdiction & Legitimacy:** Russia (and some other states) will reject its legitimacy. Defining the exact legal basis and ensuring broad international acceptance is complex.

    *   **Enforcement:** Arresting high-level Russian officials (especially Putin) while they remain in power or protected by Russia is extremely difficult, potentially making the tribunal symbolic for years.

    *   **Political Will:** Requires sustained commitment and funding from numerous nations. While there is strong support in Europe and among allies, universal backing is impossible.

    *   **Practicality vs. Principle:** Critics might argue resources are better spent on prosecuting atrocities on the ground (which the ICC *can* do) or that the tribunal will be ineffective without enforcement power. Proponents argue the principle of holding leaders accountable for aggression is paramount.

7.  Current Status:

    *   A "**Core Group**" of over 40 countries (including EU members, UK, Canada, Japan, etc.) is actively discussing the tribunal's format.

    *   Options include a tribunal based on a Ukrainian treaty with other states, a UNGA-endorsed tribunal, or a hybrid model. Discussions focus on the most legally sound and broadly acceptable model.

    *   Significant political momentum exists, but final agreement on the model and establishment is still pending.

                        In essence:

             Zelenskyy backs a special tribunal to ensure that the Russian leaders who ordered the invasion of Ukraine face justice specifically for the crime of aggression – a charge the ICC cannot currently pursue against them. It's a high-stakes effort to establish a landmark precedent for leader accountability for starting wars, facing significant legal and political hurdles but driven by the core principle of justice for the foundational crime committed against Ukraine.