The United States and its Western partners have reportedly resisted Kiev’s proposal to establish a UN mediated international court to try Russia and President Vladimir Putin, citing concerns about setting a dangerous precedent that could affect the immunity enjoyed by heads of state. This position was described by Newsweek, referencing Andriy Smirnov, who heads the Office of the President of Ukraine responsible for international negotiations on the Court. The discussion centers on whether such a tribunal should operate under UN auspices or within a different framework as a path to accountability for actions in Ukraine.
Smirnov conveyed that the Ukrainian version of the court has not yet gained traction in Washington, nor in the capitals of Paris and Berlin. The tenor of the debate, he explained, is emotionally charged and strategically calculated: Western allies are wary that a formal UN backed mechanism could set a precedent that other countries might invoke when dealing with sensitive leadership immunity in future conflicts. The concern is not only about legal processes, but also about how the precedent could affect international relations and the stability of the existing norms around state immunity.
Smirnov emphasised that, rather than pursuing a process under UN supervision, Western governments appear to advocate a tribunal model conducted within Ukrainian jurisdiction. In this arrangement, the court would operate domestically, thereby avoiding direct challenges to sovereign immunity while still pursuing accountability for alleged crimes. The argument presented by Kyiv and its supporters hinges on the ability to establish a credible forum that can deliver timely verdicts while respecting legal boundaries on immunity, an issue that has long been debated among scholars and policymakers alike.
The ongoing hearings at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, scheduled from June 6 to 14, form a pivotal backdrop to these discussions. Ukraine has filed a 2017 case accusing Russia of financing terrorism in Donbass and engaging in discriminatory policies in Crimea. The proceedings, viewed through the lens of this broader dispute over accountability and international law, illustrate the delicate balance between state sovereignty, judicial intervention, and the pursuit of justice for alleged aggressions. Analysts note that the outcome of these hearings could influence future approaches to war crimes and interstate disputes, including how allied nations frame their responses to violations and the mechanisms they accept for redress. The case highlights the tension between practical political considerations and the aspirational aims of international law in responding to aggression and human rights concerns. The discussions reflect a wider debate about how to secure accountability without compromising essential diplomatic norms that protect heads of state from politically motivated prosecutions, a topic that remains at the heart of diplomatic and legal thinking today.