Today, Ukraine is at the center of international criminal justice due to the investigation of war crimes. Ignored arrest warrants, the ICC's lack of its own police force, and the need for Ukrainian specialists demonstrate the necessity of real influence on the work of the Hague Tribunal. Oleksiy Shevchuk, a well-known Ukrainian lawyer and candidate for a judge position at the International Criminal Court, spoke in an interview for "Judicial and Legal Newspaper" about Ukraine's role in the international justice system and why the Ukrainian experience is a unique chance for reforming the system.
– Mr. Oleksiy, why do you believe that the integration of Ukrainian specialists into the structure of the International Criminal Court is so important right now?
Oleksiy Shevchuk: Because right now, for Ukraine, it's not just a matter of justice, but also a matter of influencing the future international justice system. The official ICC website currently has active vacancies, particularly in the Prosecutor's Office and other departments, and the Court specifically emphasizes the need for geographical representation and diversity. If we don't train Ukrainian specialists now, in a few years we will have to catch up on what should have been built today.
– There is a stereotype that working in The Hague is exclusively the prerogative of a narrow circle of specialists in international public law.
Oleksiy Shevchuk: No, and that's precisely what's important to explain. ICC vacancies include not only legal positions but also roles in language support, coordination, analysis, human resources, and administration. For example, there was recently a Language Assistant (Ukrainian and Russian) vacancy, which shows that Ukrainian expertise is needed not only in the courtroom but also in the daily work of the entire institution.
– What is the practical benefit for the judicial system if representatives of our country work in the departments of the Prosecutor's Office or the ICC Secretariat?
Oleksiy Shevchuk: The practical benefit is twofold. Firstly, Ukrainian specialists gain access to experience that then benefits the Ukrainian justice system, diplomacy, and public administration. Secondly, Ukraine gains people who can professionally represent our context in international institutions, which is very important when it comes to war crimes, deportations, torture, or attacks on civilians.
– Is there really a demand for candidates from Ukraine at the ICC?
Oleksiy Shevchuk: Yes, and this is evident not only from individual vacancies but also from the logic of the recruitment process itself. The ICC explicitly states that it encourages candidates from underrepresented State Parties and emphasizes the goal of ensuring geographical balance. This means that for Ukrainians, it's not a formal opportunity but a real direction in which to invest professional development.
– What specific steps need to be taken now to make Ukrainian candidates competitive in the international justice market?
Oleksiy Shevchuk: We need to create training for young Ukrainian lawyers, translators, analysts, investigators, and administrative specialists. Training is needed in international criminal law, legal English, writing cover letters, preparing for competitions, and understanding ICC procedures. If we don't do this, we will lose the chance to turn the current demand for justice into a long-term Ukrainian presence in international institutions.
– Why can't this issue be postponed until after the war?
Oleksiy Shevchuk: Because building human resources infrastructure takes a long time. A person doesn't become ready for an international institution in one year – it requires experience, language skills, practice, networks of contacts, and an understanding of the system. If we only start after the war, we will lose valuable time when international attention to Ukraine is at its peak.
– You are talking not only about bringing to justice but also about the enforcement of International Criminal Court decisions. What is the main problem here?
Oleksiy Shevchuk: The main problem is that international justice does not end with a verdict. Real enforcement of the punishment is also needed. And today, the International Criminal Court itself does not have its own prison system where punishments would be served. For this, it relies on states that agree to accept convicted persons. That is, the mechanism exists, but it is not completely self-sufficient.
– So you believe the system is incomplete?
Oleksiy Shevchuk: Exactly. It's essentially an unfinished cycle. The Court can investigate, prosecute, and make decisions, but the actual enforcement of the sentence depends on the cooperation of states. And if such cooperation is weak or politically selective, then the effectiveness of the entire mechanism is undermined.
– What about the apprehension of those who are wanted?
Oleksiy Shevchuk: And here there is a serious limitation. The International Criminal Court does not have its own police or law enforcement agency with cross-border powers. It cannot independently go and apprehend a suspect. This means that all the work of arrest, delivery, and ensuring appearance largely depends on the State Parties and their readiness to fulfill their obligations.
– But shouldn't State Parties do this automatically?
Oleksiy Shevchuk: In theory, yes. In practice, not always. And that's why scandals arise when individual states delay the process or effectively fail to fulfill their obligations. This undermines trust in the system and creates the impression that international law acts selectively.
– Are you referring to the case with Mongolia and Putin?
Oleksiy Shevchuk: Yes, that's a very telling example. When a State Party has obligations to the Court for years but effectively fails to ensure compliance with its requirements, it looks like a serious system failure. Especially if the reaction boils down to formal correspondence, and the person for whom there is a warrant already leaves the country unhindered. For international justice, this is a blow to its authority.
– Why, in your opinion, do even State Parties behave this way?
Oleksiy Shevchuk: The reasons can be varied: political pressure, fear of consequences, dependence on major powers, internal geopolitical interests, or a desire to avoid conflict. But from a legal perspective, this is no excuse. If a state is a party to the system, it must act not only formally but also genuinely.
– What solution to this crisis do you see?
Oleksiy Shevchuk: It is necessary to strengthen the mechanisms of state responsibility for non-compliance with Court decisions. It is also worth building stronger international political will so that ICC warrants do not remain mere paper documents. And, of course, states that are ready to cooperate honestly with the Court should be supported.
– So the problem is not only with the Court but also with the political will of states?
Oleksiy Shevchuk: Exactly. The ICC can issue the strongest legally sound decision, but without real enforcement, it does not have its full effect. Therefore, the fight for justice is not only the work of judges and prosecutors but also a test of the responsibility of states.
– What other problems do you see in the work of the International Criminal Court today?
Oleksiy Shevchuk: Besides the issue of enforcing sentences and apprehending the accused, there is another very important problem – funding. This is not just about budgets as such, but about the Court's ability to operate stably, fairly, and effectively. When difficulties arise with judges' salaries or compensation payments to victims, it is no longer just a technical problem, but a signal of systemic vulnerability.
– So you believe that the very model of the Court's operation needs updating?
Oleksiy Shevchuk: Yes, absolutely. Today, there is a need for a deeper rethinking of the procedural mechanism of international criminal justice. The world has changed, conflicts have become more complex, the scale of crimes larger, and victims' expectations significantly higher. Therefore, procedural rules must correspond to modern realities, and not just to the historical logic by which the Court was created.
– And here Ukraine plays a special role?
Oleksiy Shevchuk: Exactly. The Ukrainian case is unique because it simultaneously involves almost all categories of crimes falling under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. And at the same time, it is precisely in the Ukrainian context that all the weaknesses of the international system have become very clear: from the complexity of response to financial limitations and procedural gaps. That is, Ukraine has become not only a victim of these crimes but also the case that showed where the system needs reforms.
– You say that the Ukrainian case can influence the future of international law?
Oleksiy Shevchuk: Yes, and it is very important to realize this. The Ukrainian experience already shows today that the existing mechanisms are not always sufficient to deal with modern war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other gross violations. That is why the Ukrainian case can become a model for updating procedural approaches, strengthening the Court's instruments, and forming a more effective international model of justice.
– What key message should we take away from this situation?
Oleksiy Shevchuk: The main conclusion is very simple: Ukraine today not only needs justice but also shapes new international practice. We have the right to demand not only punishment for the guilty but also reform of the system itself so that it better meets the real challenges of our time.
And in this sense, the Ukrainian case is not just another proceeding, but a historical lesson for all international criminal justice.
