This op-ed was co-authored with Wayne Jordash KC, President of Global Rights Compliance.

Despite these challenges, prosecuting collaboration is essential for Ukraine’s security and rule of law, provided it is conducted in compliance with international humanitarian law and international human rights law.

In this context, Global Rights Compliance seeks to facilitate a clearer and more consistent understanding of Ukraine’s collaboration law, including the need for its application and ongoing proposed reform to align with prevailing international legal standards, through structured guidance, prosecutor handbooks, standard operating procedures for investigators, and a draft national strategy.

Why is it important for Ukraine to prosecute collaborators during an armed conflict?

After the full-scale invasion in February 2022, Ukraine faced an urgent, real-time imperative to develop a human rights compliant legal framework that is capable of addressing the full spectrum of collaboration. Such an effort was necessary to preserve Ukraine’s national sovereignty and deter conduct undermining the struggle for territorial restoration and self-determination.

Ukraine’s need for robust, strongly enforced laws punishing treason, collaboration and the denial of aggression stems not only from punishing betrayal of the public trust and the emotional feeling of Ukrainians, but also from the existential nature of the threat it faces. Since 2014, Russia has not only aimed to steal Ukraine’s land, but it has violated its territorial integrity, sovereignty, and sought to perpetrate cultural genocide by the erasure of its national identity.

Collaborators can materially contribute to the success of an unlawful occupation by enforcing the occupier’s rules, legitimising occupation structures, and assisting in the suppression of the Ukrainian population from within temporarily occupied territory. Without clear and enforceable collaboration laws, Ukraine risks allowing impunity for such conduct and, more fundamentally, failing to hold individuals accountable for acts that undermine its efforts to restore its territorial integrity.

Further, having a strong and coherent law on collaboration is essential to protect the Ukrainian population that are living under occupation. These Ukrainian communities endure daily coercive treatment, the threat of arbitrary arrest and detention, persecutory treatment concerning their national identity, oppressive propaganda and surveillance. The use of such collaborators enables an occupying regime of control rooted in fear and betrayal. Without firm accountability processes, these persons may evade justice.

In the war against Ukraine, alleged collaboration arises within the context of Russia’s occupation of Ukrainian territory. As a result, the conduct of alleged collaborators must be assessed within the legal framework of occupation, which governs both the powers exercised by the occupier and the coercive conditions under which civilians act. This framework is essential to determining when conduct reflects compelled compliance and when it constitutes unlawful assistance giving rise to criminal responsibility under Ukrainian domestic law.

What are the permissible limits for belligerent occupier?

Occupation is a temporary, de facto situation and does not lead to a transfer of territorial sovereignty. Under occupation law, the Occupying Power is required to respect the existing laws and institutions of the occupied territory as far as possible and to avoid making far-reaching changes to the existing order or intrinsic characteristics of the occupied territory. While the occupier does not acquire sovereignty over the territory, it does acquire administrative rights within the restraints of occupation law and obligations. Below is a brief description of various administrative actions it can and cannot take.

What can an occupying power do and not do?

Because occupation law permits the occupying power to administer the territory and obliges the civilian population to continue aspects of daily life under that administration, not all forms of interaction, compliance, or cooperation with Russian authorities constitute collaboration. Cooperation with occupation authorities may be unavoidable or legally compelled and does not, without more, amount to criminal conduct.

For this reason, investigations and prosecutions of alleged collaboration must be grounded in a clear understanding of what occupation law allows and requires, so that Ukrainian law, investigative practice, and prosecutorial decisionmaking distinguish ordinary or coerced compliance from conduct that meaningfully assists the occupier’s unlawful objectives. Ukrainian authorities must remain cognisant of this distinction, as the legitimate pursuit of accountability for betrayal of the State must be carried out through an accurate application of occupation law.

Conclusion 

Prosecuting collaboration during an armed conflict is a legitimate and necessary exercise of State authority where such conduct contributes to the maintenance of an unlawful occupation and undermines sovereignty from within. This brief analysis demonstrates that this necessity cannot be separated from the legal framework governing occupation, which shapes both civilian conduct and the limits of criminal responsibility. Ukraine’s challenge is therefore to ensure that collaboration prosecutions reflect the realities of life under occupation while remaining firmly grounded in international humanitarian law and international human rights law. When this balance is maintained, accountability strengthens the rule of law and supports territorial restoration. When it is not, prosecutions risk undermining the very legitimacy they are intended to protect.