The establishment of the Special Tribunal on the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine (STCA) marks a historic moment in the defense of the international legal order. Russia’s full‑scale invasion of Ukraine represents the most blatant act of aggression in Europe since the Second World War. The international community has responded with determination, culminating in the June 25, 2025 agreement between Ukraine and the Council of Europe to create a tribunal capable of prosecuting the crime of aggression at the leadership level.
To succeed, the STCA must begin its crucial initial stages no later than the end of 2026. Justice delayed risks becoming justice denied—not only for Ukraine, but for the credibility of international law itself. The tribunal’s start‑up budget of €20 million is designed to ensure a rapid, efficient, and politically sustainable launch, drawing on the proven model of the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL), one of the most cost‑effective and swiftly operationalized tribunals in modern history.
A Cost‑Effective Model Grounded in Proven Success
The SCSL demonstrated that a tribunal can be established quickly and at modest cost when leadership, planning, and political will align. With a lean staff, a focused mandate, and a dynamic operational plan, the SCSL moved from agreement to indictments in a matter of months—not years.
The STCA budget mirrors this approach. It prioritizes:
- A small, highly experienced staff capable of immediate operational work
- Rapid refurbishment of a functional building, rather than waiting for a purpose‑built facility
- Early deployment of investigators and legal experts
- Simultaneous political and institutional development, avoiding sequential delays
- A modest but essential travel budget to secure state accessions and coordinate with Ukraine
This is not a bureaucratic blueprint. It is a practical, field‑tested model for delivering justice efficiently.
Why the Tribunal Must Begin Work by the End of 2026
Time is not neutral in matters of international justice—it is among the aggressor’s most powerful weapons. The longer the tribunal takes to begin operations, the greater the risk that political momentum will erode, public attention will drift, and adversarial actors will attempt to undermine or delegitimize the process.
Beginning meaningful operations by late 2026 is essential for three reasons:
- Political Credibility – States joining the Enlarged Partial Agreement must see tangible progress to justify financial and diplomatic investment.
- Deterrence – Early operational capacity sends a clear message that aggression will not be ignored or normalized.
- Evidence Preservation – Timely investigative work is critical to securing, authenticating, and protecting evidence of leadership‑level decision‑making.
The proposed budget ensures that the tribunal can meet this timeline without compromising quality or independence.
Simultaneous Political and Institutional Development
A key feature of the STCA’s start‑up plan is that political accession and institutional setup can—and must—proceed in parallel. This dual‑track approach avoids the common pitfall of waiting for full political alignment before beginning operational work.
Under this model:
- The advance team begins drafting rules, securing facilities, and hiring staff while
- Diplomats and legal advocates work to secure the 25–30 state accessions needed for political legitimacy and financial sustainability.
This simultaneous approach is not only efficient—it is strategically necessary. It demonstrates momentum, reduces political reversibility, and builds confidence among early supporters.
A Lean, Professional, and Efficient Staffing Structure
The staffing plan reflects a commitment to professional excellence and fiscal responsibility. The tribunal will begin with:
- 10 staff in the Office of the Prosecutor
- 15 staff in the Registry
- Leadership at UN Under‑Secretary‑General and Assistant Secretary‑General levels
- A mix of D‑2, P‑5, and P‑4 professionals with prior experience in international tribunals
This structure ensures immediate operational capacity while avoiding the excessive staffing levels that burdened earlier tribunals. It is a deliberate investment in competence, not bureaucracy.
A Realistic and Responsible €20 Million Start‑Up Budget
The €20 million budget covers:
- Personnel costs
- Building refurbishment and security
- IT and information management
- Vehicles and logistics
- Office equipment and supplies
- Travel throughout Europe, Ukraine, and North America
- Initial investigative and legal operations
- A modest contingency reserve
Every line item is tied directly to operational necessity. Nothing is superfluous. The budget is designed to demonstrate seriousness, attract donor confidence, and ensure that the tribunal can begin meaningful work quickly.
Risk Mitigation
Launching the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine requires not only financial and political commitment but a clear strategy for mitigating the risks that have historically undermined international justice mechanisms. The tribunal’s success will depend on anticipating these risks early and building safeguards into its structure, staffing, and operational timeline.
- Preventing Political Erosion Through Early Operational Activity
The greatest risk to the tribunal is political drift. Aggression cases are uniquely vulnerable to geopolitical pressure, shifting alliances, and donor fatigue. The longer a tribunal remains in the planning stage, the easier it becomes for opponents to undermine it and for supporters to lose momentum. Beginning meaningful operations by the end of 2026 is therefore not aspirational—it is protective. Early activity creates facts on the ground, reduces reversibility, and signals to states that the tribunal is real, credible, and moving forward.
- Simultaneous Political and Institutional Development
A common failure point for new tribunals is sequencing political accession and institutional setup one after the other. This creates long gaps where nothing visible happens, inviting criticism and weakening support. The STCA avoids this risk by pursuing both tracks simultaneously. While states join the Enlarged Partial Agreement, the advance team can secure premises, draft rules, hire staff, and begin building the tribunal’s operational core. This dual‑track approach compresses timelines and prevents political stalling.
- Using Experienced Leadership to Reduce Start‑Up Delays
Another major risk is institutional inexperience. Tribunals that rely on leaders unfamiliar with international criminal procedure often lose years to avoidable mistakes—unclear rules, inefficient staffing, and slow investigative planning. Appointing a Prosecutor, Registrar, and Judges who have already served in senior positions at international or hybrid tribunals dramatically reduces this risk. Experienced leadership shortens the learning curve, accelerates decision‑making, and ensures that the tribunal avoids the bureaucratic pitfalls that slowed earlier institutions.
- Controlling Costs Through a Lean, Proven Model
Financial overreach is a well‑documented risk in international justice. Large tribunals with expansive staffing and infrastructure have historically struggled with sustainability. The STCA mitigates this risk by adopting a lean model inspired by the Special Court for Sierra Leone—one of the most cost‑effective tribunals ever created. A small, highly skilled staff, a refurbished building rather than a purpose‑built facility, and targeted operational spending ensure that the tribunal remains financially credible to donors and politically defensible to member states.
- Ensuring Security and Continuity in a High‑Risk Environment
Aggression cases implicate senior political and military leaders, making the tribunal a potential target for cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and diplomatic pressure. Early investment in secure communications, protected data systems, and physical security infrastructure mitigates these risks. A robust security posture from the outset protects evidence, personnel, and the tribunal’s independence.
- Maintaining Public Confidence Through Transparency and Measurable Progress
A tribunal that appears opaque or stagnant risks losing public legitimacy. Regular public updates, transparent budgeting, and visible early milestones—such as hiring senior staff, securing premises, and publishing procedural frameworks—help maintain confidence among states, civil society, and the Ukrainian public. Transparency is not merely good governance; it is a shield against political manipulation.
A well‑designed risk mitigation strategy ensures that the tribunal is not only created but sustained. By acting quickly, relying on experienced leadership, controlling costs, and maintaining transparency, the STCA can withstand political pressure, preserve its independence, and deliver the accountability that this moment in history demands.
A Tribunal Built for Urgency, Legitimacy, and Impact
The STCA is more than a legal institution—it is a statement about the future of the international order. Its success depends on speed, credibility, and efficiency. The proposed €20 million start‑up budget reflects a realistic, responsible, and historically grounded approach to launching a tribunal capable of prosecuting the crime of aggression at the highest levels.
By following the proven model of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, beginning operations no later than the end of 2026, and advancing political and institutional development simultaneously, the STCA can become a powerful instrument of accountability and a lasting contribution to global peace and security.
The world is watching. The moment demands action—not years from now, but now.
*David M. Crane is a global leader in international criminal justice and the founding Chief Prosecutor of the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone. He has spent decades shaping accountability mechanisms around the world, including serving as a driving force behind the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine. Crane is a distinguished scholar of international law, a former senior U.S. national security official, and a leading voice on the rule of law, state responsibility, and the legal limits on the use of force.
