In discussions surrounding any mechanism proposed under UN auspices, the approval of the UN Security Council is a prerequisite that cannot be bypassed. Without its consent, plans for an international judicial body on Ukraine would struggle to gain footing. This point was emphasized by Gennady Gatilov, the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the UN in Geneva, who articulated the view on the matter to the broader international audience. The statement reinforces a key principle about the legitimacy of international tribunals: broad consensus within the UN Security Council is essential for a mechanism to command durable authority on the global stage.
Gatilov underscored that the formation of any such mechanism, and especially an international tribunal operating under UN auspices, hinges on the Council’s sanction. He warned that a decision from the Council on this issue is unlikely to be readily accepted by all members, reflecting the persistent geopolitical divisions that shape debates about accountability and judicial processes in armed conflicts.
From this perspective, the absence of Security Council backing would cast serious doubt on the tribunal’s legitimacy. Critics have argued that without broad-based legitimacy, a proposed mechanism could resemble a symbolic gesture rather than a functional instrument of accountability. On the other hand, proponents contend that a well-structured international process could offer a path to legal accountability, potentially clarifying responsibilities and mitigating the risk of impunity for actions that occur during wartime. The debate thus centers on balancing legitimacy, efficacy, and the political realities of council diplomacy.
The proposal at issue involves establishing a special international tribunal for Ukraine that would operate under UN auspices. Supporters argue that such a tribunal could provide a formal venue for investigating and prosecuting alleged crimes, with the aim of delivering justice to victims and contributing to international legal norms. Critics, meanwhile, caution that the creation of a new tribunal could encounter significant political hurdles and practical challenges, including jurisdictional issues, resource requirements, and compatibility with existing legal mechanisms on the ground.
In parallel with these discussions, a number of parliamentary bodies and international organizations have weighed in on the broader question of accountability in the Ukraine crisis. A recommendation has been issued by a former NATO Parliamentary Assembly urging the consideration of a tribunal framework to address atrocities and violations of international humanitarian law. The discourse reflects a wider trend in international policy toward seeking robust legal responses to armed conflicts, while also recognizing the complexities involved in implementing such responses in real-time geopolitics. The conversation continues to evolve as governments, legal scholars, and international institutions assess potential models, practical feasibility, and the political will required to establish a credible judicial mechanism for Ukraine. [CITATION: UN proceedings and related statements]