Category: Ukraine

  • MIL-Evening Report: A new special tribunal will investigate Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Will it be effective?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yvonne Breitwieser-Faria, Lecturer in Criminal Law and International Law, Curtin University

    Earlier this year, the European Union, the Council of Europe, Ukraine and an international coalition of states agreed to establish a new special tribunal.

    The tribunal will eventually be tasked with holding Russia accountable for the 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It’s expected to start operating in 2026.

    Human rights organisations, international lawyers and some (mostly European) states have long been calling for the establishment of such a tribunal. Oleksandra Matviichuk, a Ukrainian human rights lawyer, called the establishment of the tribunal:

    an important breakthrough for the international justice community and especially for the millions of Ukrainians who have been harmed by the Russian aggression.

    However, important questions remain about if it could truly hold senior Russian officials accountable.

    So, how will this new special tribunal work, and will it be effective – or necessary?

    How does the special tribunal fill the gaps left by the ICC and ICJ?

    This tribunal is separate to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

    The ICC can prosecute individuals charged with genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Russian war on Ukraine. So far, it has issued arrest warrants against four Russian senior officials, including President Vladimir Putin.

    Because Russia is not a member state to the court, the court can’t exercise legal authority over what’s known in international law as a crime of aggression (when leaders of a state launch or plan a war). For the ICC to be able to exercise this jurisdiction, the aggressor state also must be a member state of the court.

    The ICJ is a different court altogether. It primarily deals with and adjudicates disputes between states, not limited to war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. It can’t hold individuals accountable, and can only exercise jurisdiction over a dispute if both states to a dispute agree.

    While the ICC seeks to establish individual criminal responsibility, the ICJ may establish state responsibility for a violation of international law.

    Currently, there are also two cases between Ukraine and Russia before the ICJ.

    Neither deals with the question of the legality of Russia’s use of force in its invasion in February 2022. Both Ukraine and Russia would need to consent to bring this issue before the court.

    So, is a new tribunal necessary?

    Yes, because the crime of aggression currently can’t be addressed by any other international court or tribunal.

    Given the limitations of what the ICJ and ICC can do, a dedicated tribunal seems the obvious solution to hold those responsible for the illegal use of force against Ukraine accountable.

    And it’s not uncommon for specialised tribunals with limited jurisdiction over a specific situation to be created.

    Other historical examples include the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia and the Special Court for Sierra Leone.

    Given the ICC’s lack of jurisdiction over the crime of aggression, the new special tribunal would complement the court’s existing investigations into war crimes and crimes against humanity.

    Who is running the new tribunal and how will it work?

    The exact content and specifics of this new tribunal will remain unknown until the draft statute of the tribunal is published. That’s a document that outlines details including the tribunal’s jurisdiction, the applicable definition of aggression and how the tribunal will function.

    At this stage, the Council of Europe has confirmed the tribunal will work within its legal framework and principles. It will be funded by an international coalition of supportive states.

    A management committee of members and associate members of the tribunal will be responsible for the election of the tribunal’s judges and prosecutors. The management committee is made up of the Council of Europe’s council of ministers and Ukraine.

    Diplomatic discussions are still ongoing at this point, but the legal process for establishing the special tribunal can begin now.

    Will this special tribunal be more effective?

    Political, legal and practical challenges for the special tribunal remain. It’s unclear if the most senior Russian state officials can and will be able to be brought to trial for the crime of aggression.

    Nothing, so far, suggests the statute of the tribunal will contain an exception to state immunity enjoyed by heads of state, heads of governments and foreign ministers while in power.

    That means these office holders can only be prosecuted if they are no longer in power or the Russian government expressly waives their immunity.

    It’s also unclear whether states will be willing to arrest those sought by the special tribunal.

    The ICC has long faced this challenge trying to get states to act on its arrest warrants.

    Hungary, for instance, did not arrest Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he visited in April, despite an ICC arrest warrant for alleged crimes against humanity in connection with the war in Gaza.

    For the special tribunal to be effective, according to Oleksandra Matviichuk, it:

    must not become a remote and hollow entity that does not engage with the Ukrainian victims.

    Overall, much remains unclear. Will this new special tribunal be able to hold the likes of Putin accountable for the crime of aggression? Or will it become another empty promise?

    Yvonne Breitwieser-Faria does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. A new special tribunal will investigate Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Will it be effective? – https://theconversation.com/a-new-special-tribunal-will-investigate-russias-aggression-against-ukraine-will-it-be-effective-257823

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Kyiv: UNESCO is deeply concerned about threats to World Heritage in Ukraine’s capital

    Source: UNESCO World Heritage Centre

    UNESCO expresses its grave concern over the increasing threats affecting the World Heritage site ‘Kyiv: Saint-Sophia Cathedral and Related Monastic Buildings, Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra’, following the attack on 10 June 2025 by the Russian Federation. This damage occurred amidst a surge of attacks on numerous Ukrainian cities, resulting in civilian casualties and damage to cultural and educational institutions.

    Together with the UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator in Ukraine, UNESCO representative in Ukraine visited the Saint-Sophia Cathedral to assess the situation and discuss potential support for an in-depth structural analysis and emergency conservation measures. This preliminary inspection indicates that the eastern façade of Saint-Sophia Cathedral has been damaged. This iconic monument, dating back to the early 11th century, is a cornerstone of Eastern Christian architecture and monumental art.

    UNESCO condemns any attack that could threaten World Heritage sites and reiterates the obligations of States Parties under the 1972 World Heritage Convention and the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, which prohibits any deliberate actions that may cause damage to cultural and natural heritage located within the territory of another State Party.

    Repeated attacks have led the World Heritage Committee to inscribe three Ukrainian sites on the List of World Heritage in Danger – located in Kyiv, Lviv and Odesa – recognizing both the risk of direct strikes and the cumulative impact of shockwaves.

    Since 2022 and with the support of Japan, UNESCO has provided assistance to the National Conservation Area of Saint Sophia, to develop an emergency preparedness plan and advanced digital documentation of the buildings, and provide training of conservation staff in emergency response. Furthermore, through its World Heritage Fund, UNESCO supports the restoration of the Cathedral’s monumental paintings, as part of its broader cultural emergency response in Ukraine.

    MIL OSI United Nations News

  • MIL-OSI Security: Update 297 – IAEA Director General Statement on Situation in Ukraine

    Source: International Atomic Energy Agency – IAEA

    The IAEA team based at Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) has been informed that challenges related to the availability of cooling water and off-site power will need to be fully resolved before any of its reactors can be restarted, Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said today.

    Those pre-conditions for any future decision to take the ZNPP’s six reactors from their current cold shutdown status were communicated to the IAEA team during discussions with the plant and Rostekhnadzor, the Russian regulator which is this week conducting pre-licensing inspection activities at reactor units 1 and 2. The current operating licenses – issued by the Ukrainian State regulator, SNRIU, – are due to expire in December this year and in February 2026, respectively.

    Europe’s largest nuclear power plant (NPP) has not been generating electricity for almost three years now, and its location on the frontline of the conflict continues to put nuclear safety in constant jeopardy.

    Its off-site power situation also remains extremely fragile, with only one power line currently functioning compared with ten before the conflict. In addition, the destruction of the Kakhovka dam in mid-2023 means the ZNPP does not have sufficient water to cool six operating reactors.

    “Based on the discussions at the site this week, it is clear that there is a general consensus among all parties that the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant cannot start operating again as long as this large-scale war continues to endanger nuclear safety at the site, which is what the IAEA has also been stating very clearly,” Director General Grossi said.

    During this week’s meeting, the Rostekhnadzor representative said a team of its inspectors are currently conducting a two-week pre-licensing inspection scheduled to end on Friday. The results of the inspection – together with documentation submitted by the ZNPP – will subsequently be evaluated by Rostekhnadzor.  

    Also this week, the IAEA team has been observing various maintenance activities at the site, including on parts of the safety system of reactor unit 5 and on the unit 4 main transformer – which commenced its planned maintenance period this week.

    The team was informed that a pump in one of the site’s 11 groundwater wells built after the destruction of the Kakhovka dam is currently not working and will be replaced. The ten remaining wells continue to supply the sufficient flow of water needed for the shutdown reactors.

    The IAEA team reported hearing explosions at various distances from the site on most days over the past week.

    At Ukraine’s other nuclear sites, the IAEA teams at the three operating NPPs – Khmelnytskyy, Rivne and the South Ukraine – and the Chornobyl site all reported hearing air raid alarms over the past week, with the IAEA team at the Khmelnytskyy NPP sheltering at the site yesterday.

    The IAEA team based at the Khmelnytskyy NPP observed a two-day emergency exercise to test the response to a site blackout.

    Over the past week, one of the three reactor units at the South Ukraine NPP completed its planned refuelling and maintenance outage and returned to full power generation, after which another unit was shut down for maintenance. The refuelling and maintenance outage of the third unit is still ongoing, as is the planned such outage of one Rivne NPP’s four reactors.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI Security: Update on Developments in Iran

    Source: International Atomic Energy Agency – IAEA

    The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is continuing to closely monitor and assess the situation regarding the Israeli attacks on nuclear sites in the Islamic Republic of Iran, providing frequent public updates about developments and their possible consequences for human health and the environment, Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi said today.

    Since the military attacks began almost a week ago, the IAEA has been reporting on damage at several of these facilities, including at nuclear-related sites located in Arak, Esfahan, Natanz and Tehran, and their potential radiological impact.

    In his statement to the Board of Governors on 13 June, the morning of the attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, the Director General recalled the numerous General Conference resolutions on the topic of military attacks against nuclear facilities, in particular, GC(XXIX)/RES/444 and GC(XXXIV)/RES/533, which provide, inter alia, that “any armed attack on and threat against nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes constitutes a violation of the principles of the United Nations Charter, international law and the Statute of the Agency”. 

    He also stated that, furthermore, the IAEA has consistently underlined that “armed attacks on nuclear facilities could result in radioactive releases with grave consequences within and beyond the boundaries of the State which has been attacked”, as was stated in GC(XXXIV)/RES/533.

    Later at the special session of the Board of Governors on 16 June 2025, in his statement, the Director General emphasized that, “For the second time in three years, we are witnessing a dramatic conflict between two IAEA Member States in which nuclear installations are coming under fire and nuclear safety is being compromised. The IAEA, just as has been the case with the military conflict between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, will not stand idly by during this conflict.”

    “The IAEA is monitoring the situation very carefully,” he said. “The IAEA is ready to respond to any nuclear or radiological emergency.”

    It was the Director General’s third comprehensive statement in four days about the situation in Iran, following the statement to the Board on 13 June and one to the United Nations Security Council later the same day. In addition, the Agency has provided regular updates on its official X account.

    IAEA inspectors remain present in Iran, ready to be deployed at nuclear sites when possible, even though the number of Agency staff has been reduced somewhat in light of the security situation, Director General Grossi said.

    He added: “The Agency is and will remain present in Iran. Safeguards inspections in Iran will continue as required by Iran’s safeguards obligations under its NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) Safeguards Agreement, as soon as safety and security conditions allow.”

    Calling for maximum restraint to avoid further escalation, Director General Grossi stressed that he was ready “to travel immediately and engage with all relevant parties to help ensure the protection of nuclear facilities and the continued peaceful use of nuclear technology in accordance with the Agency mandate, including by deploying Agency nuclear safety and security experts, in addition to our safeguards inspectors in Iran, wherever necessary.”

    “Military escalation threatens lives, increases the chance of a radiological release with serious consequences for people and the environment and delays indispensable work towards a diplomatic solution for the long-term assurance that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon,” he said.

    The IAEA stands ready to act within its statutory mandate to assist in preventing a nuclear accident that could result in grave radiological consequences, he said, adding: “For the IAEA to act, a constructive, professional dialogue will have to ensue, and this must happen sooner rather than later.”

    Based on information available to it, the IAEA has been reporting on the situation at the nuclear facilities and sites in Iran, including:

    The Natanz Fuel Enrichment Plant site was targeted in attacks on 13 June that destroyed the above-ground part of the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant, one of the facilities at which Iran was producing uranium enriched up to 60% U-235.

    Electricity infrastructure at the plant – including an electrical sub-station, a main electric power supply building, and emergency power supply and back-up generators – was also destroyed. The loss of power to the underground cascades may have damaged the centrifuges there, Director General Grossi told the Board on 16 June.

    Later this week, the IAEA issued an update, saying that based on continued analysis of high- resolution satellite imagery collected after the attacks on the nuclear site at Natanz, the Agency has identified additional elements that indicate direct impacts also on the underground enrichment halls at Natanz.

    There has been no radiological impact outside the Natanz site, but circumscribed radiological and chemical contamination inside the enrichment facility, Director General Grossi reported.

    “It was limited to this facility. There was no radiological impact externally,” he said.

    Considering the type of nuclear material at the Natanz facility, it is possible that uranium isotopes contained in uranium hexafluoride, uranyl fluoride and hydrogen fluoride are dispersed inside the facility, he said. The radiation, primarily consisting of alpha particles, poses a significant danger if uranium is inhaled or ingested. However, this risk can be effectively managed with appropriate protective measures, such as using respiratory protection devices while inside the affected facilities. The main concern inside the facility is the chemical toxicity of the uranium hexafluoride and the fluoride compounds generated in contact with water.

    At the Esfahan nuclear site, four buildings were damaged in Friday’s attack: the central chemical laboratory, a uranium conversion plant, the Tehran reactor fuel manufacturing plant, and the enriched uranium metal processing facility, which was under construction. As in Natanz, off-site radiation levels remain unchanged at the Esfahan nuclear site.

    On 18 June, the IAEA said in an update that it had information that two centrifuge production facilities in Iran – the TESA Karaj workshop and the Tehran Research Center – were hit. Both locations were previously under IAEA monitoring and verification under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

    At the Tehran Research Center, one building was hit where advanced centrifuge rotors were manufactured and tested. At the Karaj workshop, two buildings were destroyed where different centrifuge components were manufactured.

    The Khondab Heavy Water Research Reactor, under construction, was hit on 19 June. As the reactor was not operational and did not contain any nuclear material, Director General Grossi said no radiological consequence was expected. While damage to the nearby Heavy Water Production Plant was initially not visible, it is now assessed that key buildings at the facility were damaged, including the distillation unit.

    At present, no damage has been observed at Iran’s other nuclear sites.

    While there so far has been no major radiological incident as a result of the attacks, Director General Grossi stressed the possible nuclear safety and security risks.

    “There is a lot of nuclear material in Iran in different places, which means that the potential for a radiological accident with the dispersion in the atmosphere of radioactive materials and particles does exist,” he said.

    Director General Grossi also emphasized the importance of cooperating and exchanging information with the Iranian authorities.

    “Amid theses challenging and complex circumstances, it is crucial that the IAEA receives timely and regular technical information about the nuclear facilities and their respective sites. This information is needed to promptly inform the international community and ensure an effective response and assistance to any emergency situation in Iran,” he said, adding that he was also in constant contact with other countries in the region.

    MIL Security OSI

  • MIL-OSI NGOs: President Trump’s Iran statements ‘a deadly game of brinkmanship’, Lord Robertson tells London Conference

    Source: Chatham House –

    President Trump’s Iran statements ‘a deadly game of brinkmanship’, Lord Robertson tells London Conference
    News release
    jon.wallace

    Fading trust in international rules-based order was a common point of discussion at annual conference with the theme ‘Rewriting the rules of the world’.

    The Israel–Iran war and its implications for US foreign policy dominated Chatham House’s London Conference, the annual event that brings together policymakers, businesspeople, and experts on international affairs. Shifting global allegiances and power dynamics informed many of the discussions at the day-long gathering at the St. Pancras London, Autograph Collection hotel. 

    The two keynote speakers brought different perspectives on the Israel–Iran war. In the opening session former NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson told Chatham House Director Bronwen Maddox:

    Lord Robertson speaks at the London Conference.

    ‘One feature will be the…US president’s decision and we await to see what that’s going to be. And that will shift the places on the chess board quite dramatically, irrespective of the way it goes. 

    ‘And it would appear at the moment that he is involved in a deadly game of brinkmanship, using the same skills that he had as a property developer. But this is not, you know, the plan for a condominium in the centre of New York, you know, this is the future stability of the world.’

    Later, former MI6 chief Sir John Sawers said he believed that that US should bomb Iran’s deep nuclear sites, such as Fordow, that Israel could not reach, but that President Trump should not seek regime change.

    ‘I think the Americans should frankly get on with it and get it over with. A, it reduces the chance of the Iranians shipping out more and more kit from Fordow and other sites into places where they can store it safely, and they will certainly have those options, I think.