Home › Opinion › Should Russia's leaders face a special tribunal?
Should Russia's leaders face a special tribunal?
Summary
A look back at the European Parliament's 1 May 2026 resolution on prosecuting the invasion of Ukraine, and a separate withdrawal in Mali.
What did the European Parliament actually commit to when it voted on 1 May 2026, and what did it leave open? Looking back from 2 May 2026, the resolution it adopted was a clear political signal, though not a legal act that created anything by itself.
The Parliament backed the establishment of a special tribunal to prosecute Russian leaders for crimes connected with the war in Ukraine. It also called for sanctions to stay in place until a peace agreement is fully implemented. The second demand matters as much as the first: it ties the pressure on Moscow to implementation, not merely to the signing of a deal.
What the tribunal is meant to do
The Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine is conceived as an ad hoc international criminal tribunal. Its aim is to prosecute individuals responsible for the invasion under the legal concept of crimes of aggression. It is designed to complement the existing International Criminal Court investigation in Ukraine.
The gap it addresses is procedural. The invasion has been described as violating international law from the start, and as a crime of aggression under international criminal law and under the domestic criminal codes of both Ukraine and Russia. Yet procedural obstacles exist to prosecutions under those laws. A dedicated tribunal is one proposed way around them.
A parallel setback in Mali
Also on 1 May 2026, in a separate theatre involving Russia, the jihadist group Jama'at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin took over a base outside Tessalit in Mali's Kidal Region. Malian troops and Russia's Africa Corps had abandoned the base beforehand.
The two developments are unrelated in substance, but they landed on the same date. One showed European lawmakers pressing for accountability over Russia's war in Ukraine; the other showed Russia's Africa Corps leaving a position in Mali.
The judgement
The resolution's value lay in keeping two demands on the table together: personal accountability for those who ordered the invasion, and sanctions that outlast the ceasefire paperwork. A parliamentary vote cannot found a tribunal on its own. But by stating both positions plainly on 1 May 2026, the Parliament set out what it expected any eventual settlement to include.
