Monitoring Ukraine

 As the dust settles in certain Ukrainian towns and cities, images of death and destruction are being broadcast to the world, and chants are growing louder for war crimes to be prosecuted. 

President Biden has argued the need for one, President Macron has stated that there are clear indications of war crimes and the Human Rights Watch has begun to offer reports on abuse and summary executions. Investigations have begun for legal proceedings to take place. 


Just this week, a Russian soldier was tried and convicted for war crimes in Ukraine; a 21 year old tank commander was sentenced to life imprisonment for killing a civilian in Chupakhira on February 28th. As the first sentencing to take place for the war crimes in Ukraine, the conversation has now turned to the topic of a greater war tribunal taking place, in an effort to bring a sense of justice for what has happened over the past few months. 


Since the prosecution of Nazi leaders in Nuremberg, war tribunals have been seen as a powerful tool of justice. Not least to act as a political symbol that shows such actions will not be tolerated, but also to prove the continued relevance of our international legal systems - despite rising challenges faced as a result of globalisation and modern conflict. Tribunals offer a sense of justice, and a feeling that these international systems, which states have worked so hard to project, still have some force. 


Justice Robert H. Jackson, Nuremberg’s head prosecutor, when talking of the “grave responsibility of justice” stated that “law shall not stop with the punishment of petty crimes by little people. It must also reach men who possess themselves of great power and make deliberate and concerted use of it to set in motion evils which leave no home in the world untouched.” 


Robert H. Jackson giving his opening statement, Nuremberg 1945

The Ukrainian General Prosecutor herself echoed a similar message recently when she stated that “no executioner, no person who ordered or helped to commit crimes in Ukraine will escape justice.” The principle of law is not removed during the fog of war - it adapts and offers more flexibility - but if we are to have any sense of finality to conflict, then there needs to be rules. The prosecution of these individuals therefore, is imperative; they are a way of bringing a small sense of peace to the victim’s family, but also are important in conveying the fundamental message that hatred and conflict have no place in the global system.


Achieving a full tribunal is not as simple as one might hope, however. 


There are two main routes for prosecuting either a state or an individual for war crimes - the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC). 


The ICJ rules on disputes at a state level and is born from international legal codes - for example the Geneva Convention and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Although powerful, there are certain limits in terms of enforcement and who can be prosecuted. The ICJ itself does not have its own police force, and therefore become reliant on the UN Security Council to implement and enforce any rulings it may pass. In the current situation, this becomes tricky, given the fact that Russia is a member of the UN Security Council and therefore could veto any decision - thereby rendering it ineffective. The fact that it operates at a state level, and cannot prosecute individuals, also means that the evidence must be robust.  


The ICC, in contrast, as a descendant of the Nuremberg Trials, rules on war crimes at both the individual and state level. Seemingly the more obvious route to take, this can also be laborious - as it requires significant amounts of evidence, which takes longer and also must be verified before any action can take place. Furthermore, Russia is not a party to the ICC and does not recognise it, meaning therefore, is under no obligation to surrender any suspect. 


These hurdles however, should not prevent Ukraine seeking justice. Russia has waged an unjust and destructive offensive, under which so many civilians have suffered, and it doesn’t seem to be easing. The immediate difficulties faced in collecting evidence and bringing a tribunal into effect should not deter the long term goal. If the international rule of law is to have any impact in modern society, it should do so by being a voice for so many silenced Ukrainians. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Biden’s Drone Policy: an Explosive Blast from the Past

Image
President Biden had signed a new drone policy, said to limit counter-terrorism drone strikes which take place outside of conventional war zones. This policy departs from the previously loosened status of the former President Trump’s approach to the War on Terror. The policy codifies the limits that the admin put in place following his inauguration in January 2021. These limits, namely in the form of requiring the CIA and military to obtain White House permission to attack suspected terrorists where there is limited ground troops, have been implemented in the hope of reducing civilian risks.  Overall, this new policy calls for fewer drone strikes and greater consideration for civilians caught in the crossfire. A seemingly hopeful departure from Trump’s “ take out their families ” approach. Although a promising step forward, there are a few things to consider:  Following the aftermath of Trump’s counterterrorism policy, where there was a certain free for all and a sentiment of “...
Read more

A Question of Civilian Casualties

Image
The U.S withdrawal from Afghanistan was said to have been the end of America’s fight in the Middle East. As with many endings however, no matter how unclear or dramatic, there always comes a need for reflection and a moment to assess where those involved fell short. America's use of drones are no exception to this. Air Force technicians prepare a MQ-9 Reaper for flight When a state engages in drone warfare, it opens a family sized can of worms relating to problems of international law and waging a just war. Another problem to consider however, is the question of civilian casualties. Drones hold the allure of removing boots on the ground in the immediate moment; thereby creating a safer and more remote war. When you remove in-person involvement however, and wage your war from behind a screen, the ability to assess and accurately identify who is a threat is minimised. Pentagon documents , obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, revealed that drone strikes conducted in Afgh...
Read more

$5 million vs $5: Getting Your Money's Worth

Image
When you create a weapon so efficient and precise that it has been said to put “warheads on foreheads”, it can be expected that it might come back and bite you at some point.   This is exactly the position that America is finding itself in following the proliferation of the use of drones. What used to be an advantage on the side of America – a safer war from the confines of a base on American soil – has now fallen into the hands of insurgent groups.   In an attempt to combat this, the U.S has become to roll out a number of strategies across the multiple military branches in the form of training, tools and sensors to jam or prevent unmanned aerial vehicles. Col. David Morgan, Joint C-sUAS Office Division Chief of Requirements and Capabilities has identified it to be a “systems of systems approach… there is no one silver bullet that is going to address this.”   The introduction of this ‘system of systems’ aims to become a natural part of training so that any war fighter...
Read more