Slovakia does not want to support the creation of a special tribunal to prosecute Russia for the crime of aggression against Ukraine – and it’s refusing to explain why. Legal experts argue it is essential to fill a gap that currently prevents Russia from being prosecuted for its invasion.
Written by Natália Silenská| Euractiv.sk
After three years of terror, Ukrainians have a glimmer of hope that justice may one day be served. In early May, more than 40 countries backed the creation of a Special Tribunal to prosecute the crime of Russian aggression committed against Ukraine.
The tribunal – to be established through an agreement between the Ukrainian government and the Council of Europe – would hold Russian political and military leaders accountable for launching the full-scale invasion in February 2022.
Every EU member state except two supported the initiative. The outliers? Hungary and Slovakia.
A group of 31 Slovak international law experts drew attention to Slovakia’s absence last week. In a joint appeal to the government, they expressed concern over Robert Fico administration’s approach and urged it to reconsider.
In their letter, they stressed that punishing international crimes has an essential deterrent function, and that respect for international law is in Slovakia’s long-term national interest.
But the Slovak government has remained silent, offering no response to the appeal or reasons for its opposition to the tribunal. This despite PM Fico repeatedly calling for respect for international law – and even acknowledging that Russia had “flagrantly violated” it by invading Ukraine.
“If foreign troops operate in a sovereign state without approval from a relevant international organization, that constitutes a violation of international law and the international community has a right to respond,” Fico said during Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014.
“The use of Russian military force in Ukraine was a gross violation of international law,” he said again during the full-scale war in 2024. “We are here to help you,” he told Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal.
Radio silence from the government
The Slovak Government Office, Smer-SD, Hlas-SD, and even coalition figures known for their pro-Ukraine stance – such as Investment Minister Samuel Migaľ (for Smer-SD) and Parliamentary Committee Chair for European Affairs Ján Ferenčák (Hlas-SD) – did not respond to questions from Euractiv Slovakia.
The Foreign Ministry directed inquiries back to the Government Office.
Only one politician eventually commented: MEP Branislav Ondruš of Hlas-SD, who opposes the tribunal. His main argument is that it appears “redundant” since the International Criminal Court (ICC) already exists.
The ICC, commonly known as the Hague Court, was established in 2002 to prosecute individuals for the most serious international crimes. Its jurisdiction, based on the Rome Statute, is recognized by over 120 countries, including Slovakia.
Ondruš said he favours reforming the ICC to expand its mandate rather than creating a new tribunal.
“I don’t understand the logic of the states proposing this special tribunal – how they believe it will be effective outside the broader context of ICC reform,” he told Euractiv Slovakia.
But both these arguments are easily debunked.
A tribunal to fill a legal void
The “redundancy” claim is explicitly refuted by the Council of Europe. The ICC currently has no jurisdiction over the crime of aggression – one state attacking another – due to legal limitations.
“That’s why a special tribunal is being created to fill this legal gap,” the Council explains on its website.
The ICC can investigate war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide committed in Ukraine. That’s why it has issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin — not for launching the invasion, but for the deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia.
The suggestion that reforming the ICC is a better solution is also disputed by Rastislav Šutek, an international law expert and co-author of the legal scholars’ appeal to the government.
He points out that the way ICC jurisdiction currently works makes it impossible to retroactively prosecute Russian aggression against Ukraine. Šutek, who leads the NGO Peace for Humanity, also highlighted other advantages of the proposed tribunal. For instance, it will likely allow trials in absentia.
“This means Russian – and potentially Belarusian or other – officials could be prosecuted for the crime of aggression even if they are not arrested and handed over to the tribunal,” he explained to Euractiv Slovakia.
In his view, the tribunal should be seen as a complement to the ICC, not a replacement or rival.
He also noted that similar mechanisms in the past have succeeded in delivering justice.
“International criminal justice stands on the foundations of the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals after World War II. The case law from those tribunals is still cited today,” he said.
In the 1990s, ad hoc tribunals were set up for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, which he described as highly effective. There are also precedents from Cambodia, Lebanon, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, and others.
Opposition sees no valid reason to reject tribunal
Opposition parties Progressive Slovakia (PS) and SLOVENSKO both support the tribunal. According to Ivan Korčok, former foreign minister and former presidential candidate, there is “no reason” Slovakia should oppose it.
“This is a textbook example of the government’s double standards in foreign policy. On the one hand, it talks a lot about international law. On the other, when it’s time to defend those principles, it sides with the Russian aggressor,” Korčok told Euractiv.
Former interior minister Roman Mikulec (SLOVENSKO) called Fico’s government position’s “yet another disgrace” to the country. “And why? Because Putin told Fico to?” he asked on Facebook.
In his statement to Euractiv, MEP Ondruš also dismissed the tribunal as a “hypocritical” move. He criticized some countries for calling to prosecute Russia while allegedly staying silent on crimes linked to Israel or Turkey.
He further argued that the tribunal only deepens tensions with Moscow and delays a peaceful resolution to the war in Ukraine.
But Šutek sees this as “purely a political argument” meant to shield Russian officials from accountability. He notes that by the same logic, Slovakia would have to criticize itself, as it currently contributes to war crimes investigations in Ukraine – something that could also irritate Russia.
He reminded readers that tribunals have been launched during active conflicts in the past – such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, created by the UN Security Council in 1993, while fighting was still ongoing.
Finally, Šutek said that a failure to pursue justice in one case doesn’t justify inaction in another.
“On the contrary, if Slovakia believes crimes are being committed elsewhere, as a signatory to the Rome Statute it has the option of referring those situations to the ICC. But on that front, it has remained passive,” he concluded.
The project is co-financed by the governments of Czechia, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia through Visegrad Grants from the International Visegrad Fund. The mission of the fund is to advance ideas for sustainable regional cooperation in Central Europe.
The project is supported by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea.
