Key Takeaways
- Canada has provided substantial military, economic, and humanitarian aid to Ukraine and has a strong record of leadership in international justice (ICC founding, R2P, landmine ban, G7 stewardship).
- The Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine, established by Ukraine and the Council of Europe and endorsed by 36 + states, represents a historic mechanism to prosecute the supreme international crime of aggression.
- Despite its commendable assistance, Canada remains a passive observer of the Tribunal, which undermines its legacy of justice leadership and weakens the Tribunal’s legitimacy.
- Canada possesses the expertise, diplomatic weight, and moral authority to influence the appointment of the Tribunal’s Prosecutor, Registrar, and Judges and to join the Enlarged Partial Agreement.
- Active Canadian participation would reinforce the rules‑based order, deter future aggression, support victim‑centred justice, and signal to democracies that aggression will not go unpunished.
- The authors urge the Canadian government to move from rhetoric to resolve: join the agreement, support qualified personnel, and champion the Tribunal as a matter of principle and policy.
Canada’s Current Support for Ukraine
The Canadian government deserves recognition for its robust assistance to Ukraine, including the recent pledge of $270 million in military aid and $2.5 billion in economic support. Beyond material help, Canada has assumed a leading role in international accountability initiatives, notably co‑chairing the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children, which addresses one of the gravest war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Russian forces. These efforts align with Canada’s longstanding tradition of championing justice and human rights on the global stage.
Canada’s Historic Leadership in International Justice
Canada’s record in international criminal justice is distinguished: it was a founding member of the International Criminal Court (ICC), a principal advocate of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, a key negotiator of the Ottawa Treaty banning anti‑personnel landmines, and a recent steward of the G7 agenda on accountability and rule‑of‑law matters. This legacy demonstrates that middle‑power states can effect meaningful change when they act decisively and principled.
The Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression Against Ukraine
Immediately after Russia’s unprovoked and premeditated invasion of Ukraine, a high‑level working group advocated for a Special Tribunal to prosecute the crime of aggression. In June 2025, Ukraine and the Council of Europe concluded an agreement establishing the Tribunal, which has since garnered endorsement from 36 + states and continues to grow. The Tribunal is portrayed as a watershed moment in the international pursuit of justice, comparable in significance to the Nuremberg trials.
Why Canada’s Passive Role Is Problematic
Although Canada’s aid to Ukraine is substantial, its silence regarding the Special Tribunal constitutes a betrayal of its own justice legacy. By remaining a passive observer in both the Tribunal’s establishment and its operationalization, Ottawa undermines the moral authority it has built through decades of leadership in international accountability and diminishes the impact of its otherwise valuable contributions to Ukraine’s defence.
The Foundational Importance of Combatting Aggression
The crime of aggression sits at the core of the UN Charter and the Rome Statute; it is the “supreme international crime” because it unleashes war, suffering, and instability. Russia’s 21st‑century conduct—marked by invasions of Chechnya and Georgia, the annexation of Crimea, and the ongoing war against Ukraine—has been enabled by a persistent culture of impunity. The Special Tribunal aims to break that cycle by delivering justice to victims, holding perpetrators accountable, deterring future aggression, and affirming that no state or leader stands above the law.
Ukraine’s Struggle as a Defence of the Rules‑Based Order
Ukraine’s resistance is not merely a national conflict; it is a defence of the rules‑based international order that Canada has championed for generations. When a powerful state seeks to redraw borders by force, the repercussions echo worldwide, threatening global stability, security, and prosperity. For Canada, this is a direct challenge to the principles that underpin its foreign policy and its commitment to a law‑based international system.
Council of Europe and Ukraine’s Leadership
The Council of Europe and Ukraine have demonstrated the necessary political will and legal expertise to create a credible, legally grounded mechanism for prosecuting aggression. Their work has produced a tribunal capable of trying the highest levels of Russian leadership for the unlawful use of force—a development unseen since Nuremberg. The Tribunal’s legitimacy now depends on appointing seasoned, independent officials—a Prosecutor, a Registrar, and Judges—who can navigate its complex legal and political landscape.
Canada’s Capacity to Shape the Tribunal
Canada possesses the diplomatic weight, legal expertise, and moral authority to influence the selection of the Tribunal’s key officials and to strengthen its overall credibility. Joining the Enlarged Partial Agreement of the Special Tribunal would send a clear signal that Canada stands with the community of democracies in upholding the prohibition on aggressive war. Such a move would also encourage other states—particularly within the G7 and the broader international community—to follow suit, thereby reinforcing the Tribunal’s legitimacy at a critical juncture.
A Moral and Geopolitical Imperative
For Canada, participation in the Special Tribunal is both a prudent geopolitical decision and a moral responsibility. It is fundamentally about the Ukrainian people: ensuring that justice is accessible, meaningful, and centred on victims’ experiences. Canada’s established record of supporting victim‑centred approaches to international justice positions it well to guarantee that the Tribunal reflects these values. By acting now—joining the agreement, backing qualified personnel, and lending its voice to the coalition—Canada can transform its legacy of leadership into concrete action.
Conclusion: A Call to Resolve
The creation of the Special Tribunal offers a historic opportunity to reinforce the rule of law at a moment when it is under threat. Canada has both the opportunity and the obligation to help ensure that Russia’s aggression is met with accountability rather than impunity. The authors urge the Canadian government to move from rhetoric to resolve: to join the agreement, support the appointment of capable officials, and champion the Tribunal as a matter of principle and policy. By doing so, Canada can help shape a more just and secure future—one where aggression is confronted, victims are heard, and the rule of law prevails.
Irwin Cotler is the International Chair of the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights and former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. David M. Crane is a global leader in international criminal justice and the founding Chief Prosecutor of the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone, a chief architect of the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine.