On 16 February 2026, the Research in Public International Law Group of the Bristol Law School organised an event on “Perspectives on Post-Conflict and Post-Atrocity Accountability”. It welcomed Dr Fabricio Guariglia for a compelling and timely keynote on “Ongoing Accountability Efforts in Ukraine”. The event drew 30 staff and students, filling the room to capacity, with students attending from across our LLB and LLM in International Law and Conflict programmes. Their engagement throughout the session underscored both the relevance of these issues to their studies and the growing interest in international accountability among the next generation of legal practitioners. Dr Guariglia, who has served as defence counsel and victim representative in Argentina, held senior roles at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Court, and now directs the International Development Law Organisation Hague office, drew on decades of experience to explore the legal institutional and human challenges posed by the ongoing conflict.
A system under pressure: Ukraine’s overnight transformation
A central theme of Dr Guariglia’s keynote was the extraordinary strain on Ukraine’s criminal justice system. When Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022, Ukraine already maintained a specialised war crimes unit. Yet this was nowhere near enough to cope with the explosion of violations across the country. Almost instantly, the entire judiciary pivoted into war crimes mode. Prosecutors and judges accustomed to working within structures shaped by the Soviet legacy found this model unworkable amid territorial occupation and mass displacement.
Investigators adapted quickly. Laptop-based field interviews replaced office-based procedures. Moreover, emergency laws and curfews led to a temporary collapse in ordinary crime. For a time, nearly the entire prosecutorial apparatus focused on atrocity crimes. But as refugees returned and daily life resumed, ordinary criminal caseloads surged once again, leaving legal professionals simultaneously managing conventional offences and a war crimes docket that now exceeds 200000 cases. Only a small proportion of these have progressed to trial, revealing longstanding structural gaps in prioritisation and case tracking.
International engagement and Ukraine as a “laboratory”
Recognising the scale of the challenge, Ukraine sought help from the international community. States contributed seconded personnel expert advisers and platforms for coordination. Dr Guariglia highlighted one major success. Four years on Ukrainian judges and prosecutors possess significantly greater expertise in international humanitarian and international criminal law. In many ways Ukraine has become a “laboratory” for international law, especially regarding the crime of aggression, committed on a scale and with a clarity of annexationist intent not seen in recent history.
Yet gaps remain. The International Criminal Court is unable to prosecute the crime of aggression in Ukraine due to the Court’s jurisdictional requirements, creating a stark mismatch between the gravity of the wrongdoing and the existing accountability tools.
A conflict with many harms: gendered violence, environmental damage, and the targeting of children
Dr Guariglia noted that the war’s impact extends far beyond the battlefield. Gender-based violence is prevalent during war and women often seek refuge in neighbouring countries, where some become victims of exploitation and trafficking. The environmental damage caused by the conflict will stay for generations. And among the most troubling developments are the violations against children who were separated from their families, transferred to Russia, and subjected to systemic Russification efforts.
The challenge of linking crimes to perpetrators
Dr Guariglia highlighted two challenges. First, Ukraine’s legal system does not operate on a priority basis, in the sense that there is no effective case-mapping or prioritisation process. Prioritisation is happening in an organic rather than a systemic manner. Second, there are issues in establishing linkage evidence that is the connections between crimes and those responsible. Access to military intelligence and internal documents remains severely restricted, resulting in many cases stalling before trial. The use of the universal jurisdiction principle in other countries and the creation of a joint investigative team (with ICC participation) coordinated through Eurojust offer some hope, but meaningful justice will require decades of sustained work.
Panel Reflections: Limits and Opportunities in International Criminal Justice
The post-keynote panel broadened the discussion to consider global accountability efforts.
Slow but meaningful progress
Tanvir Hashem Munim (Lecturer at UWE and ICC Counsel) emphasised the slow pace of investigations and arrest warrants in relation to the situation in Myanmar. He highlighted that progress was made in various forums. The Government of Gambia initiated a case before the International Court of Justice and a case has started in Argentina using universal jurisdiction. In contrast other initiatives, such as those in Indonesia, have been rejected. Tanvir stressed that arrest warrants themselves can be victories, offering hope and signalling that impunity will not endure.
Aggression: the core crime still evading legal capture
Lawrence Hill-Cawthorne (Professor of International Law at the University of Bristol) highlighted the structural gap around the crime of aggression. Although Ukraine has cases before the European Court of Human Rights, the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea none directly referred to aggression, leaving a critical aspect of the conflict unaddressed in formal legal terms. Also as Ukraine has largely lost these cases (except for those brought before the European Court of Human Rights) Russia has framed these outcomes as vindications, even when they do not reflect the broader context of the conflict.
The Ljubljana – the Hague Convention: a new tool with old challenges
Alison Bisset (Associate Professor at the University of Reading) presented the Ljubljana-The Hague Convention, the first global interstate treaty focused on cooperation in investigating and prosecuting international crimes. Driven by practitioner needs the Convention addresses jurisdiction extradition evidence sharing and victims’ rights. While it has the potential to reshape cooperation difficulties remain. It mirrors the UNTOC model which many states fail to use. It does not address immunities. It fails to refer to evidence gathering that is specific to international crimes (for example excavations). It provides much leeway to states to refuse cooperation on the basis of national security and it is overwhelmingly supported by European states raising questions about global uptake.
Conclusion: a generational struggle for justice
Dr Guariglia’s keynote and the subsequent panel offered a rich though realistic and sobering assessment of what justice looks like amid ongoing conflict. The work ahead is immense and will span generations. Yet legal institutions however imperfect remain essential. They document truth empower victims and gradually build pathways to accountability. For our students in the LLB and LLM programmes the event was both academically invaluable and deeply motivating illustrating the importance of their future roles in shaping global justice.