LSE Public Lecture: Depopulation—An Ethical Perspective

Date: October 6, 2025
Podcast: LSE Public Lectures and Events
Host: London School of Economics and Political Science
Main Speaker: Professor Klaus Kress, University of Cologne
Moderator: Professor Gary Simpson

Overview of the Episode

This episode examines the contemporary and historical legal frameworks addressing the crime of aggression, with a focus on developments since Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Professor Klaus Kress explores the evolution from the Nuremberg Trials to the efforts to establish a Special Tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine, and ongoing attempts to strengthen the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) jurisdiction over such crimes. Ethical, juridical, and policy controversies are discussed, alongside the challenge of moving from ad hoc justice to a truly universal legal architecture.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Historical Foundations and Fragility of the Crime of Aggression

(Starting at 04:59)

• Origins: The crime of aggression—initially termed "crimes against peace" at Nuremberg—emerged amidst enormous controversy and legal debate. Soviet jurist Aaron Trinine was instrumental in its Nuremberg inclusion.

• Quote (Kress, 09:19):
  “Aggression belongs to, but is hanging by, a thread in the firmament of international offenses.” — Frederic Meigret

• Legal Marginalization: Despite foundational precedents in Nuremberg and Tokyo, international prosecution of aggression languished due to insufficient legal consensus, political resistance from powerful states, and jurisdictional limitations.

2. The Modern Revival: Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine and Renewed Calls for Accountability

(Starting at 12:00)

• Context: Russia’s full-scale assault on Ukraine (Feb 24, 2022) resuscitated debate about prosecuting aggression.

• Triggering Event: Philip Sands' FT essay (Feb 28, 2022) called for “a dedicated international tribunal to investigate Putin and his accolades for the crime of aggression,” leveraging Nuremberg’s legacy.

• ICC Limitations: The ICC could not prosecute for aggression due to stringent jurisdictional limitations, prompting debates on reform.

3. The Formation of a Special Tribunal for Aggression against Ukraine

(Starting at 21:45)

• Diplomatic Momentum: Ukraine’s Foreign Minister, previously a scholar of Nuremberg’s legacy, advanced the Sands proposal. Public and government opinion collectively advanced the idea.

• Western Alignment: The US, UK, and France, after initial hesitancy, gradually endorsed the need for a special tribunal.

• Diplomatic Complexities:

  • Two camps: Ukraine (and allies) advocated for a "full-fledged international tribunal" with broad UN legitimacy; the G7 advocated for a tribunal anchored in Ukrainian domestic law but with select international elements.

• Model Chosen (Apr 2024): Ultimately, a regionally anchored tribunal under the Council of Europe framework, with both international and national legal features—a compromise between competing visions.

• Memorable Quote (Kress, 39:41):
  “It is impressive to see to what extent a determined group of smaller and medium sized states have... managed to get a genuine compromise agreed.”

4. Jurisdiction, Immunities, and International Cooperation

(Starting at 37:00 and 47:00)

• Jurisdiction: Grounded in Ukraine’s territorial authority, procedure triggered by Ukraine’s Prosecutor General.

• Immunity Issue:

  • Russian “troika” (President, PM, Foreign Minister) retain immunity while in office. Tribunal statutes require suspension of proceedings against them until they leave office—a key G7 demand.
  • Contrast with ICC: ICC’s “Al Bashir” precedent ignored sitting head-of-state immunity; this tribunal retains it, reflecting its more regional character.

• International Character:

  • Treaty-based, international judges and prosecutors, use of the ICC’s 2010 “Kampala” definition of aggression.
  • Still, the tribunal doesn't reach “credible universal orientation”—it remains a regional solution with some internationalization.

5. The Push to Reform the ICC: Toward Universal Jurisdiction

(Starting at 50:00)

• Parallel “Friends” Process: Group of states (Costa Rica, Germany, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Vanuatu) push for ICC statute reform to remove the constraints limiting ICC prosecution of aggression.
• Broad Support: Cross-regional majority at 2025 Assembly of State Parties (Europe, Africa, Latin America) back a “harmonization proposal” granting the ICC the same powers as with other core crimes.
• Resistance: Canada, France, Japan, New Zealand, UK (with US as observer) block consensus. US threatens further sanctions.
• Outcome (54:00): Compromise resolution keeps reform on ICC’s agenda, aiming for a new vote by 2029.
• Quote—Palestine’s Ambassador, Amb. Bahima (55:19):
  “When we talk about the crime of aggression, we are looking at a hurdles race where instead of running, we continue to walk and where obstacles continue mounting and the victims... are asked to wait.”

6. Audience Q&A: Ethical and Legal Dilemmas

(Starting at 57:10)

Audience Questions:

• Just War Theory and International Law: Are we trapped by “just war” arguments justifying exceptions to aggression’s criminalization? Kress: The law of force is controversial but “manifest” violations—such as Russia’s invasion—are clear, with ambiguous cases excluded from criminal law per ICC definitions.

• Obstruction of Justice by Sanctioning the ICC: Could US sanctions be considered “obstruction of justice”? Kress: Such sanctions could fit “obstruction” as understood in ICC’s Article 70 crimes. Member states shouldn’t be deterred by sanction threats.

• Feasibility of Prosecuting Russian Leaders: With key individuals protected by immunity and unlikely to travel, is justice possible? Kress: Political realities limit arrests, but investigations and indictments have symbolic and practical importance for long-term accountability.

• Tribunal’s International Status and Immunity: Does the tribunal’s hybrid nature undermine its claim to be “international” or affect immunities? Kress: True universality is lacking, so immunity application differs from ICC’s standard.

• Aggression Law’s Origins: Does its prohibition trace back before the UN Charter (e.g., Kellogg-Briand Pact)? Kress: No; international criminality for aggression crystallized only at Nuremberg, with previous treaties not creating criminal liability.

7. Core Reflections and Conclusions

(Starting at 80:30)

• Universalism vs. Selectivity: Simpson queries whether international criminal law on aggression is always contingent, tailored to obvious offenders, never truly universal.

• Kress’s Response: All international crimes exist in political contexts. The focus on aggression’s political nature is not unique—it applies to genocide, war crimes, etc.—yet uncertainty is not a reason to abandon legal progress.

• Final Memorable Quote (Kress, 90:57):
  “The existence of borderline cases, the existence of gray areas does not prevent us to move forward with respect to other crimes. And it is the question that African [and] Latin American states asked: why is it the crime of aggression that we take those concerns so particularly serious? ... There is a suspicion…that the sensitivity...is greater when it comes to their personnel than with respect to genocide and crimes against humanity.”

• Simpson’s Compliment (91:02):
  “You come closer than virtually anyone else to turning me into a reasonable international criminal lawyer.”

Notable Quotes with Timestamps

• “Aggression belongs to, but is hanging by, a thread in the firmament of international offenses.”
  — Frederic Meigret, cited by Professor Kress [09:19]

• “Let Putin reap what he has sowed, including the legacy of Nuremberg.”
  — Phillip Sands, cited by Kress [13:59]

• “This means that with respect to personal immunities…the legal regime before the Special Tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine deviates from the jurisprudence of the ICC.”
  — Kress [36:52]

• “It is impressive to see to what extent a determined group of smaller and medium sized states have…managed to get a genuine compromise agreed.”
  — Kress [39:41]

• “When we talk about the crime of aggression, we are looking at a hurdles race where instead of running, we continue to walk, and where obstacles continue mounting and the victims…are asked to wait.”
  — Amb. Bahima, Palestine [55:19]

• “The existence of borderline cases, the existence of gray areas does not prevent us to move forward with respect to other crimes…why is it the crime of aggression that we take those concerns so particularly seriously?”
  — Kress [90:57]

• “You come closer than virtually anyone else to turning me into a reasonable international criminal lawyer…”
  — Simpson, to Kress [91:02]

Timeline of Key Segments

| Timestamp | Theme / Topic | |---------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 00:16 | Introduction and outline of lecture purpose and structure (Simpson & Kress) | | 04:59 | Kress’s historical overview: from Nuremberg to present | | 12:00 | The catalyzing effect of Russia’s war on Ukraine and public advocacy | | 21:45 | Progress and controversies in establishing the Special Tribunal | | 37:00 | Jurisdiction, compromise, and treatment of immunities in tribunal design | | 50:00 | The "Friends" process and ICC reform—cross-regional support and obstacles | | 57:10 | Audience Q&A: philosophical, legal, and policy-based inquiries | | 80:30 | Responses to questions on sanctions, enforcement, and philosophical foundations | | 90:57 | Final reflections on the political nature of international crimes | | 91:33 | Closing thanks and conclusion |

Tone and Language

The episode balances formal, scholarly legal analysis with candid reflections on practical politics and ethical ambition. Both Professor Kress and Professor Simpson combine precise legal language with moments of wry, sometimes self-deprecating humor. The audience discussion is lively, thoughtful, and unafraid to probe the ideological undercurrents within international law.

Conclusion

This lecture masterfully traces the evolving debate on prosecuting the crime of aggression, exposing the tensions between aspiration and realpolitik, universality and selectivity, law and politics. While technical and diplomatic obstacles persist, recent years have marked a significant shift away from marginalization, with new steps—if incomplete—toward meaningful accountability for aggressive war.

For those who missed the event, this episode offers an in-depth, nuanced overview of the legal and philosophical struggles at the heart of modern international criminal justice.