80 Years After Nuremberg and Tokyo – The Legacy and the Future of Accountability

Distinguished colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, dear friends,

Eighty years after Nuremberg and Tokyo, we stand once again at a defining moment for international justice. The trials that followed the Second World War transformed humanity’s understanding of law and responsibility.

They enshrined a principle that remains our compass: no one, not even heads of state or senior officials, is above the law.

In his opening statement before the International Military Tribunal, Justice Robert Jackson declared that ‘the ultimate step in avoiding periodic wars, which are inevitable in a system of international lawlessness, is to make statesmen responsible to law.’

That vision gave birth to the modern architecture of accountability which has been forged to a large degree here in New York.

Nuremberg identified the crime of aggression—then called crimes against peace, ironically with a decisive contribution of lawyers from the Soviet Union, in particular Aron Trainin.

The International Military Tribunal described the crime of aggression as the ‘supreme international crime’, because it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

This remains as true today as it was in 1945. The unprovoked aggression against Ukraine demonstrates that when aggression goes unpunished, every other crime follows in its wake.

Nuremberg and Tokyo were not acts of vengeance. They were acts of law—an affirmation that justice can be achieved even after unimaginable devastation.

The challenge for our generation is to preserve the spirit of Nuremberg and Tokyo while adapting it to the realities of our time.

Today, we face a similar test. The international community must again decide whether it has the courage to hold accountable those who launch aggressive wars.

The existing jurisdictional framework leaves a gap for the crime of aggression, and it is our duty to close it. The proposed Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine does precisely that. It will complement, not compete with, the International Criminal Court—focusing on those responsible for the supreme international crime, while the ICC continues to prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Together, they will form a coherent and comprehensive system of accountability.

Experience from the Special Tribunal will be precious for the ICC in future cases when it will finally be able to effectively exercise its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression, under a hopefully reformed wording of the Rome Statute.

***

The Council of Europe has played, and will continue to play, a central role in this effort. Our Organisation unites forty-six states committed to democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. It offers a credible platform for launching this new institution, grounded in international law.

The Council is a regional organisation open to the world, strengthened by cooperation with the European Union and the wider international community.

Having had the privilege to be part of this process, I can testify that the technical work of the Core Group—some of the finest legal minds from more than forty states meeting over two years—has delivered a legally sound, robust and innovative framework.

It builds on the lessons of Nuremberg and the experience of later hybrid and ad hoc tribunals—from Sierra Leone to Senegal, the Gambia and beyond.

Creating the Tribunal under the Council of Europe’s auspices anchors it in an existing institution, providing legal integrity, operational capacity, and political legitimacy.

The Tribunal’s jurisdiction will rest on Ukraine’s territorial authority using a definition of aggression based on Article 8bis of the Rome Statute and the United Nations General Assembly’s definition of aggression.

Functional immunity will not apply, and personal immunity for the so-called troika will be treated procedurally, ensuring that the law reaches every individual once they no longer hold office.

Trials in absentia, with full human rights safeguards, will prevent justice from being held hostage to political obstruction.

The drafters were inspired by many voices calling for moral clarity and creative courage—including Philippe Sands, Yulia Navalnaya and Kaja Kallas, who reminded us that defeating aggression requires imagination as well as law. Their appeal to think beyond the conventional reminds us that Nuremberg itself was once an innovation. Law evolves when necessity and conscience meet.

Indeed, this Tribunal is an act of innovation faithful to Nuremberg’s legacy. It seeks not revenge but responsibility. It reaffirms that the use of force contrary to the UN Charter is not a political miscalculation but a crime under international law.

***

Let us also be clear: justice must not become a bargaining chip in the pursuit of peace. True peace is built on accountability.

The notion that peace can be secured through impunity has been discredited by history. As both United Nations’ principles as well as our ECtHR affirm, serious crimes under international law cannot be extinguished by amnesties or pardons.

***

When President Zelenskyy and our Secretary General signed the Agreement establishing the Tribunal in Strasbourg on 25 June 2025, and when Ukraine’s Parliament ratified it unanimously a couple of weeks later, they sent a message of faith in law over force.

The next step will be the creation of a Management Committee, similar to the ICC’s Assembly of States Parties, and the appointment of judges and prosecutors.

We are deeply grateful to the European Union for their political and financial support which will allow preparatory work to start in early 2026.

***

Eighty years after Nuremberg, the principles proclaimed there remain our North Star. Justice Jackson’s warning still echoes: ‘The record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow.’

That is our collective responsibility—and an opportunity. Speaking in New York, I call on like-minded states to join us in this effort. The Special Tribunal has from the outset been conceived as an open instrument which may be joined by states from all over the world. Neither the nationality of judges nor of the prosecutors are limited to Council of Europe member states.

Any state that voted in favour of UNGA resolution A/RES/ES-11/6 of 23 February 2023 may join the Enlarged Partial Agreement from its inception and will thus be able to participate in the management of the Special Tribunal and the selection of judges and prosecutors on equal footing.

You find ample information regarding the legal nature of EPA’s and the procedure for membership as well as ‘model statements for accession’ on the website of the CoE Treaty Office.

***

To conclude, by standing with Ukraine, we defend not only a sovereign nation but the very foundation of the international rule of law.

Impunity anywhere sends the wrong signal everywhere.

Justice is not a luxury to be deferred to calmer times—it is a universal value and the precondition for lasting peace.

Let us honour the legacy of Nuremberg and Tokyo not by commemoration alone, but by continuation—by ensuring that the law remains stronger than the sword.

Thank you.