| Abstract [eng] |
The Master's thesis analyses the legal nature and institutional development of international criminal tribunals, the forms of their establishment, their effectiveness, their appropriateness and their operational possibilities in the context of modern war, i.e. Russia's aggression against Ukraine. The study examines the main models of tribunals (the International Criminal Court, traditional ad hoc and hybrid tribunals), focusing on their legal basis, jurisdictional limits, structural features, independence and symbolic significance. Taking into account legal and geopolitical factors, the suitability of each model to ensure accountability for international crimes in the event of war in Ukraine is critically assessed. Despite Ukraine becoming a full party to the Rome Statute in 2025, there remains a legal loophole related to the limited jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court in cases of the crime of aggression. For this reason, the work raises the question of the need to establish a special tribunal specifically for this crime. The study analyses the main challenges faced by the tribunals: immunities, legitimacy, selective justice, geopolitical pressure, etc. Using systematic, historical, comparative, teleological and dogmatic analyses, the work develops and justifies the author's position on the most appropriate form of accountability for aggression and other international crimes. Given the limits of the tribunals jurisdiction and the constitutional and international law obstacles, it is assumed that the establishment of a special tribunal could be a realistic and effective solution to this situation. The paper concludes that effective enforcement of individual accountability requires a legally based, independent mechanism that is widely recognised and supported in the international community and that will, in the long run, help to strengthen the authority of international law. |
