TEMPORAL JURISDICTION (RATIONE TEMPORIS) OF THE SPECIAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE CRIME OF AGGRESSION AGAINST UKRAINE

Abstract

Introduction. This article conducts a comprehensive scientific study and formulates an original legal position regarding one of the most complex issues of modern international criminal law — the determination of the temporal jurisdiction (ratione temporis) of the Special Tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine. The relevance of the topic is conditioned by the absence of a corresponding legal norm in the Statute defining the moment from which the Tribunal may commence investigations. The primary legal dilemma lies in the discrepancy between the politico-legal assessments of the events of 2014 and 2022.

Summary of the main results of the study. The author analyzes the conflict between the UN General Assembly Resolutions adopted after the full-scale invasion, where the fact of aggression was directly recognized, and the more restrained international acts from the period of the beginning of the occupation of Crimea and certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Within the framework of the study, a thorough analysis of the nature of the crime of aggression as a "leadership" and "continuing" offense of a systemic nature is conducted. Particular attention is paid to the interaction between the national jurisdiction of Ukraine and international legal jurisdiction within the hierarchy of applicable law in accordance with Article 3 of the Statute of the Tribunal. The procedural aspect of the application of the compétence de la compétence principle, which allows an international judicial body to independently determine the limits of its powers, is examined.

Сonclusion. The author scientifically substantiates that, to ensure the principle of the inevitability of punishment, the temporal jurisdiction of the Tribunal must be retrospective and cover events starting from February 2014. It is proved that limiting jurisdiction only to 2022 would create a dangerous precedent of selective justice. The article concludes that judicial discretion will play a decisive role in establishing temporal boundaries, allowing for a balance between the requirements of the nullum crimen sine lege principle and the necessity of holding the high-level political and military leadership of the Russian Federation accountable for committing the most serious international crime.