LVIV, Ukraine: Each day searing stories pour out of Ukraine: A maternity hospital bombed in Mariupol. A mother and her children killed as they fled Irpin in a humanitarian corridor. Burning apartment blocks. Mass graves. A child dead of dehydration in a city under siege, denied humanitarian aid.
Such images have contributed to a growing global consensus that Russia should be held accountable for war crimes in Ukraine.
“The world’s strongmen are watching like crocodiles … We have to show tyrants around the world that rule of law is stronger than rule of gun,” said David Crane, a veteran of numerous international war crime investigations.
Even as the conflict rages, a vast apparatus is being built to gather and preserve evidence of potential violations of international laws of war that were written after World War II. Less than a month after Vladimir Putin’s order to drop the first bombs on his neighbor, the United States declared that Russian forces were committing war crimes in Ukraine. But it remains far from clear who will be held accountable and how.
Here’s a look at what war crimes are and what options exist for bringing those responsible to justice.
WHAT ARE WAR CRIMES?
A war crime is a violation of the laws of war. While the architecture of international criminal law has been built over decades, the concept is straightforward.
“If there’s no military necessary reason to target something, it’s a war crime. If you’re just shooting like `Mad Max Thunderdome’ then it’s a war crime,” said Crane.
The core principles of international humanitarian law are enshrined in the Geneva Conventions, the bulk of which came into force after World War II, and the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court in 1998.
They provide protections for civilians in times of war, as well as for prisoners of war and the wounded. Possible war crimes that have been reported in Ukraine: widespread destruction of people’s homes, firing on civilians as they evacuate through safe corridors, targeting hospitals, using indiscriminate weapons like cluster bombs in civilian areas, attacks on nuclear power plants, intentionally blocking access to humanitarian aid or basic needs like food and water.
But intention matters. Destroying a hospital alone is not evidence of a war crime. Prosecutors would have to show that the attack was intentional or at least reckless.
Crimes against humanity, which have been codified in the statutes of a number of international criminal tribunals, occur when a state launches a widespread or systematic attack against civilians involving murder, deportation, torture, disappearances or other inhumane acts.
The mass mobilization of Ukrainian citizens to fight off Russian invaders may complicate the case against Putin. Russia could try to use the blurred distinction between civilian and combatant as a justification for attacks on civilian areas.
Some examples of recent convictions:
— In 2012, the International Criminal Court convicted warlord Thomas Lubanga Dyilo of drafting and enlisting children under 15 years old to fight in an ethnic conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo. He is serving a 14-year sentence.
— Radovan Karadžić, president of the Republika Srpska, a self-proclaimed Serb republic within Bosnia, was convicted of crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide — most notoriously, the murders of more than 7,000 people in Srebrenica in 1995. He is serving a life sentence imposed by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.
— Jean-Paul Akayesu, a mayor convicted of genocide, crimes against humanity — including rape — and incitement to commit genocide in the 1994 Rwandan ethnic bloodbath. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda sentenced him to life in prison.
WHAT IS THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT?
The International Criminal Court, located in the Hague, can prosecute individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and the crime of aggression.
The court holds sway over its 123 member countries. Ukraine is not among them but has granted the ICC jurisdiction. On Feb. 28, the ICC’s chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, announced that he would investigate suspected atrocities in Ukraine after an unprecedented 39 member states asked him to do so. Since then, more states have signed on to that request.
“There is a reasonable basis to believe that both alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity have been committed in Ukraine,” Khan said at the time.
There are important limitations to what the ICC can do. It doesn’t have the power to investigate Russia for what judges at the Nuremberg tribunal after World War II called the “supreme international crime,” the crime of aggression — that is, the decision to wage a ruthless, unprovoked war against another country, which international lawyers say would be the easiest way to hold Putin accountable.
That’s because Russia, like the United States, isn’t a party to the ICC.
When the ICC statute was amended to include the crime of aggression, the United States, Russia and China pushed for – and got — a carveout to protect citizens of countries that have not signed on to the court from being prosecuted on that charge. The UN Security Council can override that by voting to refer a matter to the ICC, but Russia has a seat on the Security Council and could easily torpedo any such initiative.
Another limitation of the ICC is that the court cannot try people in absentia.
“There would be no trial at the ICC of Putin until he is physically present in the courtroom,” said David Scheffer, who was the first ever US Ambassador at Large for War Crimes Issues and led the US delegation at talks establishing the International Criminal Court.
But the ICC could indict Putin even if he stays put in Moscow and issue an international warrant for his arrest, Scheffer said. That would seriously curtail Putin’s overseas travel and damage his standing both at home and abroad.
HAVE ANY COURTS ALREADY MOVED AGAINST RUSSIA FOR ITS ACTIONS IN UKRAINE?
Yes. On March 1, the European Court of Human Rights, in Strasbourg, told Russia to stop attacking civilians and bombing people’s homes, hospitals and schools and start ensuring civilians safe evacuation routes and access to humanitarian aid. Then, on Mar. 16, the UN’s highest court, the International Court of Justice, ordered Russia to suspend military operations in Ukraine. Both courts consider violations by states, rather than individuals.
Russia simply ignored them.
“There is no international police or international military force that can support any international court judgment,” said Ivan Lishchyna, an adviser to Ukraine’s Ministry of Justice who helped Ukraine make its case at the European Court of Human Rights. “It’s not like you receive a judgment and everything gets peaceful and quiet and everyone is punished for violating international law. It’s much more complicated.”
Many Ukrainians, including Lishchyna, would like to see Russia pay for its transgressions and cover the massive cost of repairing damage wreaked by its bombs. “If compensation were paid, I would consider that I did something good in my life,” Lishchyna said.
The ECHR could order Russia to pay compensation. But the only leverage the ECHR would have if Russia didn’t pay up would be to exclude it from the Council of Europe – which already happened on March 16. The ICJ could also order Russia to pay reparations, but the UN Security Council – where Russia holds a permanent seat and veto power – would have to enforce the judgment.
Scholars, prosecutors and politicians have started discussing whether Russian assets frozen under global sanctions could be used in the future to pay reparations to Ukraine.
CAN OTHER COUNTRIES PROSECUTE RUSSIAN OFFICIALS FOR WAR CRIMES, EVEN IF THEY’RE NOT DIRECTLY IMPACTED?
Yes. Poland, Germany, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, France, Slovakia, Sweden, Norway and Switzerland all opened independent investigations into Russia’s activity in Ukraine within the first month of the conflict. They can do so under the legal concept of “universal jurisdiction,” which allows countries to use domestic courts to prosecute individuals for grave violations of international law, like crimes against humanity, torture and war crimes – even if they are committed abroad by foreign perpetrators against foreign victims.
This approach has produced results in the past. So far, the only convictions of Syrian government officials for atrocities committed during the country’s long-running civil war have been handed down by German courts. Courts in other European countries also have convicted members of armed groups in Syria, including Daesh militants, for crimes committed during the war.
Within the first month of Russia’s war against Ukraine, Polish prosecutors said they had collected some 300 witness testimonies from refugees pouring over the border. In March, Poland, Lithuania and Ukraine agreed to set up a joint international investigative team on Russian war crimes in Ukraine. Efforts have been ongoing to expand the scope of that collaboration.
While the ICC typically only tries a handful of high-profile cases, prosecutions in national courts can cast a wider net and hold more people accountable. But they too have a limitation: Sitting heads of state, like Putin, and senior officials, like Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, generally have immunity from prosecution in other countries, said Ryan Goodman, professor of law at New York University and former special counsel at the Department of Defense.
“This probably knocks out of contention the independent national jurisdictions of Germany, Poland etc. in getting Putin, Lavrov and maybe others,” Goodman said. “But they’d be able to go after a lot of other senior Russian officials.”
IS UKRAINE PROSECUTING RUSSIAN WAR CRIMES CASES?
Yes. Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Iryna Venediktova, said that in the first month of the war, Ukraine launched investigations into more than 2,500 war crimes cases and identified 186 suspects, including Russian government officials, military leaders and propagandists.
But as top government officials, Putin and Lavrov would likely be immune from prosecution in Ukrainian courts.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER OPTIONS?
Yes. The Nuremberg Tribunal, set up after WWII to try Nazi war criminals, looms large as an example of how Putin could be held accountable by a court set up specifically for that purpose. And special tribunals were established to investigate crimes in Yugoslavia and Rwanda, among other places.
In theory, such a court could do what the ICC cannot: Prosecute Putin for the crime of aggression, even if he stays in Russia.
In early March, a campaign to create a special tribunal to investigate the crime of aggression against Ukraine, dubbed Justice for Ukraine, kicked off and quickly gained momentum. More than 140 prominent lawyers, scholars, writers and political figures, including Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba, former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and a former prosecutor for the Nuremberg tribunal, have signed on. A public petition in support of the effort got over 1.3 million signatures within weeks.
Criticisms of this approach include that it could take too long to set up, cost too much money, lack legitimacy and create the appearance of selective justice. Why, some argue, should there be a special tribunal for Russian aggression in Ukraine when there wasn’t one against the US and its allies for invading Iraq?
But others say Putin’s attack on Ukraine has shown just how inadequate existing legal options are and that a new approach is urgently required.
“Since World War II we haven’t had a case of brazen, large-scale aggression by one sovereign European nation against another,” said Mykola Gnatovsky, a prominent Ukrainian lawyer and professor who has been tapped by Ukraine’s foreign ministry to help craft a new Nuremburg-style tribunal for Russian aggression. “Accountability is important because accountability is a way to prevent this in the future.”
How would those accused of Ukraine war crimes be prosecuted?
https://arab.news/nnrg4
How would those accused of Ukraine war crimes be prosecuted?
- Less than a month after Vladimir Putin’s order to drop the first bombs on his neighbor, the United States declared that Russian forces were committing war crimes in Ukraine
Majority of UK voters support Gaza ceasefire, suspending arms sales to Israel: Poll
- Only 13% of respondents want continuation of arms sales to Israel, just 8% oppose ceasefire
- Govt, opposition ‘continue to lag sluggishly behind British public opinion’: Council for Arab-British Understanding
London: Most British voters support an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and ending arms sales to Israel for the duration of the conflict, according to a new poll.
Commissioned by the Council for Arab-British Understanding and Medical Aid for Palestinians, the YouGov survey reinforces the results of polls conducted earlier in the year.
It found that 55 percent of voters support ending arms sales to Israel for as long as the war in Gaza continues, and 73 percent support an immediate ceasefire.
Among people who voted for the governing Conservative Party in 2019, 40 percent support the suspension of arms sales, with 24 percent opposed.
Among Labour Party voters, 74 percent support an arms sales suspension, with 7 percent opposed.
Only 13 percent of all respondents want a continuation of arms sales to Israel.
“Seven months of Israel’s indiscriminate bombardment and siege have wrought the worst humanitarian crisis ever seen in Gaza,” said Rohan Talbot, MAP’s director of advocacy and campaigns.
“In recent days, Israeli forces’ escalating attacks on Rafah and the north have further displaced hundreds of thousands more people, many of them for the second or third time, and pushed humanitarian operations to the brink of total collapse.
“The feeling among the British public reaffirms the demands of humanitarians: UK leaders must do more to end the killing in Gaza, including halting arms sales so they cannot be used in further violations of international law.”
The statement for a ceasefire in Gaza is supported by 67 percent of Conservative voters and 86 percent of Labour voters.
Just 8 percent of all respondents said there should not be a ceasefire.
Both the government and opposition recorded low public approval in the YouGov poll. Only 18 percent of respondents approve of the government’s response to the war, while just 12 percent agree with the Labour response.
“What this and earlier polls continue to demonstrate is that the government and the Labour leadership continue to lag sluggishly behind British public opinion by failing to take the decisive actions needed to help bring the horrors we see in Gaza to a swift end — a trend also highlighted in polls across Europe,” said Chris Doyle, CAABU’s director.
“There is little confidence in the leadership of both the main parties in the handling of this major international crisis.”
8 EU members say conditions in Syria should be reassessed to allow voluntary refugee returns
- Officials from Austria, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Malta and Poland said they agree on a re-assessment that would lead to “more effective ways of handling” Syrian refugees
- The eight countries said the EU should further boost support for Lebanon
NICOSIA, Cyprus: The governments of eight European Union member states said Friday the situation in Syria should be re-evaluated to allow for the voluntary return of Syrian refugees back to their homeland.
In a joint declaration, officials from Austria, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Malta and Poland said they agree on a re-assessment that would lead to “more effective ways of handling” Syrian refugees trying to reach European Union countries.
The eight countries, which held talks during a summit meeting in the Cypriot capital, said the situation in Syria has “considerably evolved,” even though complete political stability hasn’t been achieved.
Cyprus has in recent months seen an upsurge of Syrian refugees reaching the island nation primarily from Lebanon aboard rickety boats.
Earlier this month, the EU announced a 1 billion euro ($1.06 billion) aid package for Lebanon aimed at boosting border controls to halt the flow of asylum seekers and migrants to Cyprus and Italy.
The eight countries said the EU should further boost support for Lebanon to “mitigate the risk of even greater flows from Lebanon to the EU.”
“Decisions as to who has the right to cross a member state’s borders, should be taken by the government of the relevant member state and not by criminal networks engaged in migrant smuggling and trafficking in human beings,” the joint declaration said.
A Cypriot official said that any re-evaluation of conditions within Syria would not necessarily mean that Syrian refugees would be deported back to their country. Instead, Syrian refugees hailing from areas re-designated as safe would lose any allowances, benefits and the right to work, creating a disincentive to others to come to Cyprus.
The official was speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t allowed to speak publicly about details of the proposal.
The countries said that while they “fully embrace” the need to support Syrian refugees in line with international law, they hoped their talks could open a wider debate within the 27-member bloc on the process of granting the migrants international protection.
In Lebanon, where anti-refugee sentiment has been surging recently, more than 300 Syrian refugees returned to Syria in a convoy earlier this week.
Lebanese officials have long urged the international community to either resettle the refugees in other countries or help them return to Syria.
Belgium’s Ghent university severs ties with three Israeli institutions
- Ties being cut with Holon Institute of Technology, MIGAL Galilee Research Institute, and the Volcani Center, which carries out agricultural research
- The three Israeli institutions did not immediately comment
BRUSSELS: Belgium’s University of Ghent (UGent) is severing ties with three Israeli educational or research institutions which it says no longer align with UGent’s human rights policy, its rector said.
Pro-Palestinian protesters in Ghent have been protesting against Israel’s military offensive in Gaza and have been occupying parts of the university since early this month.
The university’s rector, Rik Van de Walle, said in a statement that ties were being cut with Holon Institute of Technology, MIGAL Galilee Research Institute, and the Volcani Center, which carries out agricultural research.
“We currently assess these three partners as (very) problematic according to the Ghent University human rights test, in contrast to the positive evaluation we gave these partners at the start of our collaboration,” Van de Walle said.
Partnerships with MIGAL Galilee Research Institute and the Volcani Center “were no longer desirable” due to their affiliation with Israeli ministries, an investigation by the University of Ghent found, and collaboration with the Holon Institute “was problematic” because it provided material support to the army for actions in Gaza.
A spokesperson for the university said the move would affect four projects.
The three Israeli institutions did not immediately comment.
The protesters told Belgian broadcaster VRT they welcomed the decision but regarded it as only a first step. They said they would continue their occupation of parts of the university “until UGent breaks its ties with all Israeli institutions.”
The actions mirror those of students in the United States and elsewhere in Europe, calling for an immediate permanent ceasefire and for schools to cut financial ties with companies they say are profiting from what they regard as the oppression of Palestinians.
Muslim professionals quit ‘hostile’ France in silent brain drain
PARIS: After being knocked back at some 50 interviews for consulting jobs in France despite his ample qualifications, Muslim business school graduate Adam packed his bags and moved to a new life in Dubai.
“I feel much better here than in France,” the 32-year-old of North African descent told AFP.
“We’re all equal. You can have a boss who’s Indian, Arab or a French person,” he said.
“My religion is more accepted.”
Highly-qualified French citizens from Muslim backgrounds, often the children of immigrants, are leaving France in a quiet brain drain, seeking a new start abroad in cities like London, New York, Montreal or Dubai, according to a new study.
The authors of “France, you love it but you leave it”, published last month, said it was difficult to estimate exactly how many.
But they found that 71 percent of more than 1,000 people who responded to their survey circulated online had left in part because of racism and discrimination.
Adam, who asked that his surname not be used, told AFP his new job in the United Arab Emirates has given him fresh perspective.
In France “you need to work twice as hard when you come from certain minorities”, he said.
He said he was “extremely grateful” for his French education and missed his friends, family and the rich cultural life of the country where he grew up.
But he said he was glad to have quit its “Islamophobia” and “systemic racism” that meant he was stopped by police for no reason.
France has long been a country of immigration, including from its former colonies in North and West Africa.
But today the descendants of Muslim immigrants who came to France seeking a better future say they have been living in an increasingly hostile environment, especially after the attacks in Paris in 2015 that killed 130 people.
They say France’s particular form of secularism, which bans all religious symbols in public schools including headscarves and long robes, seems to disproportionately focus on the attire of Muslim women.
Another French Muslim, a 33-year-old tech employee of Moroccan descent, told AFP he and his pregnant wife were planning to emigrate to “a more peaceful society” in southeast Asia.
He said he would miss France’s “sublime” cuisine and the queues outside the bakeries.
But “we’re suffocating in France”, said the business school graduate with a five-figure monthly salary.
He described wanting to leave “this ambient gloom”, in which television news channels seem to target all Muslims as scapegoats.
The tech employee, who moved to Paris after growing up in its lower-income suburbs, said he has been living in the same block of flats for two years.
“But still they ask me what I’m doing inside my building,” he said.
“It’s so humiliating.”
“This constant humiliation is even more frustrating as I contribute very honestly to this society as someone with a high income who pays a lot of taxes,” he added.
A 1978 French law bans collecting data on a person’s race, ethnicity or religion, which makes it difficult to have broad statistics on discrimination.
But a young person “perceived as black or Arab” is 20 times more likely to face an identity check than the rest of the population, France’s rights ombudsman found in 2017.
The Observatory for Inequalities says that racism is on the decline in France, with 60 percent of French people declaring they are “not at all racist”.
But still, it adds, a job candidate with a French name has a 50 percent better chance of being called by an employer than one with a North African one.
A third professional, a 30-year-old Franco-Algerian with two masters degrees from top schools, told AFP he was leaving in June for a job in Dubai because France had become “complicated”.
The investment banker, the son of an Algerian cleaner who grew up within Paris, said he enjoyed his job, but he was starting to feel he had hit a “glass ceiling”
He also said he had felt French politics shift to the right in recent years.
“The atmosphere in France has really deteriorated,” he said, alluding to some pundits equating all people of his background to extremists or troublemakers from housing estates.
“Muslims are clearly second-class citizens,” he said.
Adam, the consultant, said more privileged French Muslims emigrating was just the “tiny visible part of the iceberg”.
“When we see France today, we’re broken,” he said.
North Korea fires multiple short-range ballistic missiles, Seoul says
- South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff did not immediately provide details of the projectile or its trajectory
- North Korea has launched a range of ballistic and cruise missiles as well as tactical rockets in recent months
SEOUL: North Korea fired a number of short-range ballistic missiles toward the sea off its east coast on Friday, South Korea’s military said, a day after the US and South Korea conducted joint drills with stealth fighter jets simulating air combat.
South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff condemned the launch as a provocation. It said the projectiles were fired from the east coast town of Wonsan and flew about 300 km (186 miles) before landing in the sea.
Citing a government official, Japan’s public broadcaster NHK also reported that a short-range missile appeared to have been launched and had already fallen.
North Korea has launched ballistic and cruise missiles as well as tactical rockets in recent months, describing them as part of a program to upgrade its defensive capabilities.
South Korea’s military did not specify the latest type of weapon, but the North’s state media has reported that its military has been testing multiple launch rocket systems that are being upgraded.
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un viewed the testing of 600 mm “super-large” multiple rocket launchers and 240 mm multiple launch rockets in recent weeks and also visited production facilities, state media reported.
Tensions on the Korean peninsula have increased since the North last year scrapped a 2018 pact aimed at de-escalating tensions near the military border drawn up under a truce ending the 1950-53 Korean War and then labelled the South “enemy No. 1.”
Earlier on Friday, the powerful sister of North Korea’s leader, Kim Yo Jong, said its tactical weapons were intended solely as a deterrent against South Korean military aggression, while again denying that Pyongyang was exporting the weapons.
US and South Korean officials have accused the North of shipping weapons to Russia to help Moscow replenish stocks for use in its war against Ukraine. Moscow and Pyongyang have denied the accusation.
Friday’s missile launches come at the same time as a visit by Russian President Vladimir Putin to the Chinese northeastern city of Harbin.
Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping criticized Washington and its allies on Thursday for what the leaders called “intimidation in the military sphere” against North Korea at a meeting in Beijing.
South Korea’s air force has said US and South Korean stealth fighters conducted “intense” joint exercises on Thursday in the central region to test and enhance offensive and defensive maneuverability.
