Annalena Baerbock went a long way when she delivered a keynote address in The Hague in mid-month.

The Green Foreign Minister spoke out in favor of a hybrid special tribunal.

It is designed to hold the Russian leadership accountable for the crime of aggression, under Ukrainian law but with international judges.

She had discussed this with the Ukrainian foreign minister, she said.

In their environment, the impression was created that one only had to clarify the details, such as where exactly the court should sit.

Thomas Gutschker

Political correspondent for the European Union, NATO and the Benelux countries based in Brussels.

  • Follow I follow

But now Baerbock is getting a lot of headwind for her proposal.

This could already be felt at the meeting of EU foreign ministers on Monday, when several colleagues expressly opposed it.

This continued at the meeting of justice ministers in Stockholm on Friday.

Only France publicly indicated that it was open to the German proposal.

On the other hand, the ministers from Belgium, Luxembourg and Latvia, which spoke for the three Baltic states, explicitly rejected him, those from Austria, Finland and Slovakia implicitly.

So clear was the contradiction that Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders pointed out the importance of remaining united on the issue.

Take action against the "big shots".

However, the Union is far from that.

Baerbock had not consulted with her colleagues before she went to The Hague.

And by now most governments have understood the flaw in their proposal.

The foreign minister mentioned it in one sentence, as if by the way: Such a tribunal would “not be able to indict the troika in particular”, i.e. the Russian President, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister.

They enjoy absolute immunity if another state sits in court over them – and that's how it would be at a tribunal under Ukrainian law.

Only the other members of the National Security Council of the Russian Federation could be indicted, such as Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu or Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev.

Without an indictment of Putin, the importance of a tribunal "would not be meaningless" but would lose importance, said Belgian Justice Minister Vincent Van Quickenborne.

You have to take action against the "big shots".

"When you talk about acts of aggression, you have to look at the aggressors," said the liberal politician.

That was often heard on Friday.

There should be "no gaps in criminal liability," argued Austria.

Concerns were also raised as to whether a tribunal under Ukrainian law would have the necessary legitimacy.

The Luxembourg side said there should be no doubts about the independence of the court.

"There are many unanswered questions regarding the implementation of Ukrainian law that needs to be changed," said Inese Libina-Ignere, Latvian Minister of Justice.

She said all three Baltic states opposed a hybrid tribunal, preferring instead a court under international law that could indict Putin.

Can the international partners be persuaded?

Of course, that would have to be used by the UN Security Council, where Moscow has a right of veto.

Alternatively, the UN General Assembly could step in, mandate the UN Secretary-General and give legitimacy to such an ad hoc court.

"We should strive for a majority of countries on all continents large enough to set up a special international tribunal," said Belgian Van Quickenborne.

The crime of aggression should not only be condemned by Europeans and America.

Baerbock is also familiar with this objection.

However, she believes that such a majority is unrealistic.

For real?

Justice Commissioner Reynders said efforts are just beginning.

"But to achieve that, we need a leading role from the EU and the EU Commission to convince not only the member states but also the international partners."

At the end of November, the EU Commission developed both options in a paper, a hybrid and an international tribunal.

You can take the next step without making a commitment, said the justice commissioner.

This is supposed to be the appointment of a provisional prosecutor.

This could be set up at Eurojust, the EU judicial authority in The Hague.

She is to work there with the existing international investigation team (JIT), in which seven countries are participating, and the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.

They are already dealing with war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

In this case, however, the Criminal Court is not allowed to investigate aggression – which is why another solution is being sought.