Solidarity under pressure: ULAG at the 24th Assembly of States Parties

Alina Pavliuk, ULAG's Legal Coordinator and Analyst attended the 24th Assembly of States Parties to contribute to the discussion related to the Court's work on Ukraine, defending the ICC, issues of non-cooperation, withdrawal, victims' rights and other topics related to the ICC and international justice for grave crimes committed in Ukraine.

Earlier this month, the international justice community gathered in The Hague for the 24th session of the Assembly of States Parties (ASP) to the Rome Statute. This year’s Assembly took place against a backdrop of unprecedented challenges – from individual sanctions and other forms of attacks followed by threats to impose institutional sanctions against the Court, to an undermined state cooperation and universality of the ICC.

Our Legal Coordinator and Analyst, Alina Pavliuk, represented ULAG at the ASP across a series of critical side events and plenary sessions, advocating for a justice architecture that is resilient, inclusive, and capable of delivering meaningful accountability.

As many have flagged, the solidarity around the idea of backing the Court and ensuring its resilience was more visible this year. 

Yet, some of the critical threats have not only remained, but also intensified, even within the weeks since the ASP took place. For example the US has threatened the Court with more sanctions unless the ICC pledges it will not prosecute the US leadership, and has later sanctioned 2 more ICC judges.

The discussions and events we took part in at the ASP echoed some of the key areas of concern for the Court – issues to which ULAG has been actively contributing throughout the year.

Through Ukraine’s Lens: Defending the ICC

On December 1, ULAG co-hosted the side event "Through Ukraine’s Lens: Defending the ICC Now for All Victims of Atrocity Crimes," alongside the Human Rights Centre ZMINA and the Media Initiative for Human Rights and Slovenia.

The ICC has a special role in ensuring justice for grave international crime committed in the course of the Russian war against Ukraine. While other jurisdictions should be further supported and strengthened, they remain inherently limited in their ability to address the crimes that fall within the ICC’s unique mandate.

However, the challenges it has been facing cause growing fears that the Court will not be able to keep up the pace it took after the opening of the investigation in 2022.

Alina reflected on the significant support states provided to the ICC for its work in Ukraine. While commendable, it also shows how political decisions can directly impact the trajectory of justice, both at the domestic level, and vis-a-vis the ICC.

"We, as representatives of civil society, have witnessed over the years how political decisions and positions can either strengthen accountability efforts or leave victims of core crimes hopeless in the face of international justice.”

Speakers have mentioned that while the ICC officials are promoting the “business as usual” approach, it is important to recognise the impact of the current situation on the Court and those working with it. Effective investigations, including in Ukraine, can also become a good illustration of why supporting the ICC is still very much so relevant. 

While analysed through Ukraine's context, the need for a stronger ICC is global. Achieving this goal requires principled, comprehensive and consistent – not reactive or selective – support, primarily from its States Parties. 

Closing the Crime of Aggression Gap

Addressing the jurisdictional gap regarding the crime of aggression (CoA) has been among the key topics of the ASP. Following the Special Session earlier this year, it is important to not lose sight of the issue and make sure all reservations are eventually discussed and addressed. Otherwise effective accountability for aggression will largely remain out of reach due to current limitations in the Rome Statute.

Together with other civil society organisations, ULAG co-hosted the side event "The Crime of Aggression After the Special Session: No Justice without Jurisdiction".

Ukraine has been actively exploring avenues to prosecute the crime of aggression, both at the domestic level and through the establishment of the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine – primarily because the ICC could not serve this purpose in the present situation. However, both tracks demonstrate how challenging it is to ensure meaningful justice for the crime of aggression in a manner consistent with international law. These challenges range from defining the crime and its elements in domestic legislation to addressing questions of immunities and victim participation, among others.

Alina Pavliuk spoke at the side event and noted that as Ukraine has become a "space for testing" different justice options, lessons learned domestically must feed back into the international system. This case only shows the need to strengthen the ICC’s CoA jurisdiction.

"Lessons and insights from the process of establishing the Special Tribunal must be used to strengthen jurisdiction of the ICC for the crime of aggression and become a practical expression of its complementarity to the Court," Alina stated.

The Challenge of Non-Cooperation

The first-ever dedicated plenary session on non-cooperation at the ASP underscored the urgency of a challenge facing the Court: a growing number of instances in which states receive individuals subject to ICC arrest warrants, in violation of their obligations under the Rome Statute.

In her address during the session, Alina emphasised that behind every arrest warrant issued by the Court are hundreds of thousands of victims who have suffered – and continue to suffer – from grave atrocities. Through acts of non-cooperation, states betray victims’ hopes for justice and enable suspected war criminals to enjoy impunity.

These messages echo a statement by the Coalition for the ICC, which includes a comment by Nadia Volkova, director of ULAG, on the decision by Tajikistan, a state party to the Rome Statute, to welcome Putin on a visit.

Centring the Victims

During her visit to the Hague, Alina Pavliuk along with other Ukrainian CSOs met with representatives from the Trust Fund for Victims (TFV) and the Victims Participation and Reparations Section (VPRS).

We explored avenues for cooperation to facilitate assessment for assistance programs and improve the understanding of the specific rights and facilitate engagement of Ukrainian victims and their representatives within the ICC system.

Looking Ahead

The 24th Assembly of States Parties highlighted that while the demand for justice in Ukraine is higher than ever, the international mechanisms designed to deliver it are under strain.

As members of the Ukrainian civil society, we must continue to strengthen the ICC and ensure that the institution receives the support it needs to function – not just for Ukraine, but for all victims of atrocity crimes globally.

We joined the General Debate Statement that was made by Hanna Rassamakhina from MIHR on behalf of Ukrainian civil society organisations, and urged the states parties and other stakeholders:

• Provide sustainable funding to the ICC;
• Publicly and consistently defend the Court’s independence against political pressure and attacks;
• Strengthen diplomatic support for the ICC against withdrawals and other threats faced by the Court;
• Ensure the enforcement of arrest obligations, and respond effectively to instances of non-cooperation; 
• Support continued visible progress in the Ukraine situation, recognising the Court’s unique ability to pursue those most responsible;
• Promote complementarity and coordination between the ICC and other accountability mechanisms;
• Uphold victim-centred justice, including meaningful participation and communication with affected communities.