Oleksiy Shevchuk on Diplomatic Legal Hub, Foreign Nationals, and Wartime Justice in Ukraine

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Diplomatic Legal Hub

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2026/04/26

How does Oleksiy Shevchuk describe the Diplomatic Legal Hub’s role in supporting foreign nationals and advancing accountability during Russia’s war against Ukraine?

Oleksiy Shevchuk is a Ukrainian attorney, public spokesperson, and wartime legal advocate whose work spans bar self-governance, lobbying regulation, business protection, and international legal accountability. He serves as chair of the National Bar Association of Ukraine’s lobbying committee and as spokesperson for the National Bar Association of Ukraine. He is chairman of the board of the Ukrainian National Lobbyists Association, was appointed in January 2026 to the competition commission selecting SAPO leadership, and was admitted in March 2026 to Ukraine’s competition for nomination of a judge to the International Criminal Court. He also leads Diplomatic Legal Hub wartime support initiatives. 

In this interview, Scott Douglas Jacobsen speaks with Oleksiy Shevchuk, a Ukrainian attorney and public spokesperson, about the Diplomatic Legal Hub, a nongovernmental initiative supporting foreign nationals, volunteers, journalists, embassies, and businesses affected by Russia’s war against Ukraine. Shevchuk explains the Hub’s pro bono legal work, documentation of war-related losses, diplomatic coordination, and assistance in gaps left by Ukraine’s legal aid system for foreigners. He also discusses compensation claims, the Register of Damage for Ukraine, veteran-informed support networks, and the longer-term role of international justice, especially the International Criminal Court, in securing accountability for affected people across wartime Ukraine today. 

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Given the limits of universal jurisdiction and the scale of the war, how do you allocate resources to address as many cases as possible?

Oleksiy Shevchuk: Universal jurisdiction remains limited in practice and is applied primarily in certain European jurisdictions. We are familiar with its mechanisms and have professional contacts in this area, including those connected to international legal initiatives. However, our direct involvement in universal jurisdiction cases is limited.

We have supported at least one case involving a Ukrainian individual from the Donetsk region who sought legal recourse in Slovenia, where elements of universal jurisdiction may apply. Our role was to assist with documentation and case preparation. The relevant judicial authorities determine the final legal outcome.

In general, we focus our efforts on areas where we can have the most practical impact. At present, we are managing a small number of active cases—approximately five or six—which allows us to maintain effectiveness and provide proper attention to each case.

We anticipate increased cooperation with international organizations as the conflict continues. This may include greater engagement with institutions such as the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, particularly regarding evidence, documentation, and case support provided by NGOs.

More broadly, Ukraine continues to develop its institutional capacity in international legal processes. This includes participation in international judicial bodies, although administrative and procedural delays remain a challenge.

Jacobsen: How do you assess Ukraine’s engagement with international justice mechanisms, particularly the International Criminal Court?

Shevchuk: You can find public discussion in Ukrainian media about challenges in national selection processes for international judicial positions. Ukraine has been holding a competition to nominate candidates for roles at the International Criminal Court. I am among those participating in that process.

Ukraine has a relatively small pool of specialists with deep expertise in international criminal law and the International Criminal Court’s jurisprudence. This reflects the field’s technical and specialized nature.

From a legal perspective, I consider the International Criminal Court to be the most viable long-term mechanism for accountability. I am skeptical about the creation of ad hoc tribunals. Historically, such tribunals—whether in Tokyo or the former Yugoslavia—were established under very specific political conditions, often following a decisive end to conflict.

In the case of Ukraine, the war’s outcome remains uncertain. If the conflict evolves into a prolonged or frozen situation, the political conditions required to establish a new international tribunal may not materialize. Such tribunals typically depend on broad international agreement, which may be difficult to achieve.

As a result, I place greater emphasis on ongoing cases within the International Criminal Court. Investigations related to senior Russian military and political figures are progressing through established procedures. The Prosecutor of the Court, Karim Khan, continues to advance these cases through the investigative phase toward potential pre-trial proceedings.

It is important to remain realistic about enforcement. The Court lacks its own enforcement mechanism and relies on state cooperation. While arrest warrants have already been issued in certain cases, including those related to the unlawful transfer of Ukrainian children, the likelihood of senior officials being detained depends on geopolitical developments.

At the same time, the International Criminal Court is often misunderstood as ineffective. In practice, it has produced a substantial body of cases, and a meaningful proportion proceed to formal judicial stages. Its role in documenting crimes, issuing warrants, and establishing legal records remains significant, even when enforcement is constrained.

Jacobsen: How should readers understand the effectiveness of international justice mechanisms and the broader legal context you are working within?

Shevchuk: One of the major challenges is public understanding. Many people are not well informed about how international legal institutions function. This is not only a problem in Ukraine but globally.

For example, recent cases have shown that international accountability mechanisms can operate effectively, even if they do not always receive sustained public attention. Proceedings can move forward quickly and, at times, with limited media coverage. This creates a perception that such institutions are inactive, when in fact they are functioning within their legal mandates.

It is reasonable to maintain measured confidence in international institutions such as the International Criminal Court. They are not perfect, but they can produce tangible legal outcomes.

At the same time, accountability depends heavily on political will. Within Europe and the broader international system, decisions on cooperation with the Court and on the enforcement of its judgments are influenced by political considerations. Whether individuals from the Russian Federation are ultimately brought before the Court will depend not only on legal processes but also on international alignment and priorities.

As for our work, the Diplomatic Legal Hub operates across multiple areas, including legal assistance, advocacy, and coordination with international partners.

In Ukraine, lobbying and advocacy are becoming more formalized as professional activities. I have been involved in these developments, including founding and leading initiatives related to legal advocacy and representation.

I also serve in a leadership and communications role within the Ukrainian National Bar Association and work with international legal and business networks. My focus is on providing legal assistance to international businesses and individuals affected by Russian aggression.

I have also worked in journalism, which informs how I communicate these issues publicly.

Regarding civil society, Ukraine has a wide range of organizations working on governance and anti-corruption. As in any country, there are debates about effectiveness, accountability, and the proper use of resources. It is important to evaluate such organizations based on evidence and measurable outcomes rather than generalizations.

Jacobsen: In the Ukrainian context, culturally and legally, what approaches are most effective in addressing corruption? What does the evidence suggest?

Shevchuk: Corruption remains an issue in Ukraine, but it is often discussed in overly broad or exaggerated terms. There have been significant reforms in recent years, particularly in public procurement, digital governance, and institutional oversight.

The most effective approaches tend to involve transparency measures, independent oversight bodies, and alignment with European legal standards. Continued reform, enforcement, and institutional development remain essential.

Jacobsen: How do internal debates about corruption and governance affect your work and priorities?

Shevchuk: Corruption is a sensitive and contested issue in Ukraine. There is ongoing tension between elected officials and anti-corruption institutions, particularly the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine. Some members of parliament argue that enforcement pressure can discourage decision-making, while others stress that strong oversight is essential for accountability.

Public discourse plays a significant role. When corruption dominates the conversation continuously, it risks becoming the central narrative, regardless of broader context or comparative realities. It is important to assess Ukraine alongside other countries in the region, many of which have faced political instability and governance challenges. Ukraine, meanwhile, continues to implement reforms amid an active war.

The most important issue is practical. There is a clear gap in legal aid for foreign nationals in Ukraine, particularly in cases involving extradition, immigration, and cross-border legal matters.

This gap presents an opportunity for legislative development. Strengthening legal support for international citizens would improve coordination with partner countries and provide more consistent protections.

If this issue is highlighted in reporting and analysis, it can contribute to the development of new legal frameworks. I intend to draw on such work to shape proposals for improved legislation that addresses the needs of foreign nationals in Ukraine.

Jacobsen: What would you emphasize as the priority going forward?

Shevchuk: The priority is to expand legal protections and structured support for international citizens. This includes clearer procedures in extradition and immigration cases, as well as more consistent access to legal assistance.

At the same time, we will continue our core work—supporting international businesses and individuals affected by Russian aggression, coordinating with embassies, and contributing to institutional development.

Jacobsen: Thank you very much for the opportunity and your time, Oleksiy. 

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.