The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
Even though Russia is not a signatory, Philippe Sands makes the case for charging Putin with it;
The ICC is investigating crimes against humanity and war crimes, but you've argued that there needs to be a special tribunal set up to investigate for a third crime, the crime of aggression. Why is that so important and is there that much difference between the three crimes? As of 1939, there was basically one relevant international crime, and that was war crimes. Then in 1945, in London, the drafters of what became the Nuremberg statute, sat down and looked at what they were going to prosecute and indict the Nazis for. There weren't any crimes so they basically had to invent them. They called them crimes against humanity, genocide, and what they then called crimes against peace which today is the crime of aggression: waging a manifestly illegal war. Since 1945, those have been the four crimes that we've had. (I've spent much of the last year working on a fifth crime, which is ecocide, but we can put that on one side for now.) In theory, the ICC has jurisdiction over all four of them. However, when the ICC statute was adopted in 1998 a decision was taken not to give the ICC jurisdiction over the crime of aggression because certain large powers were worried: is it going to turn on us? Five years later, we had the Iraq war. And so they decided not to give the ICC jurisdiction of the crime of aggression until they'd defined the crime of aggression and that took almost 20 years.
As of 1939, there was basically one relevant international crime, and that was war crimes.
Then in 1945, in London, the drafters of what became the Nuremberg statute, sat down and looked at what they were going to prosecute and indict the Nazis for. There weren't any crimes so they basically had to invent them. They called them crimes against humanity, genocide, and what they then called crimes against peace which today is the crime of aggression: waging a manifestly illegal war. Since 1945, those have been the four crimes that we've had. (I've spent much of the last year working on a fifth crime, which is ecocide, but we can put that on one side for now.)
In theory, the ICC has jurisdiction over all four of them. However, when the ICC statute was adopted in 1998 a decision was taken not to give the ICC jurisdiction over the crime of aggression because certain large powers were worried: is it going to turn on us?
Five years later, we had the Iraq war. And so they decided not to give the ICC jurisdiction of the crime of aggression until they'd defined the crime of aggression and that took almost 20 years.
The Kellogg-Briand Pact or Pact of Paris - officially the General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy[1] - is a 1928 international agreement on peace in which signatory states promised not to use war to resolve "disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them".[2] The pact was signed by Germany, France, and the United States on 27 August 1928, and by most other states soon after. Sponsored by France and the U.S., the Pact is named after its authors, United States Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg and French foreign minister Aristide Briand. The pact was concluded outside the League of Nations and remains in effect.[3]
Who could have imagined one month ago that the US Senate would be presented with a resolution by Senator Lindsey Graham calling for total support for the investigation by the international criminal court? And that it would be passing unanimously. That is a sea change, and it's a really significant sea change. You can't adopt a resolution saying the ICC has jurisdiction over Russian nationals, while saying it has no jurisdiction over Americans.
You can't adopt a resolution saying the ICC has jurisdiction over Russian nationals, while saying it has no jurisdiction over Americans.
Of course you can.
The trial of admiral Dönitz at Nuremburg is instructive:
His sentence on unrestricted submarine warfare was not assessed because of similar actions by the Allies. In particular, the British Admiralty, on 8 May 1940, had ordered all vessels in the Skagerrak sunk on sight, and Admiral Chester Nimitz, wartime commander-in-chief of the US Pacific Fleet, stated the US Navy had waged unrestricted submarine warfare in the Pacific from the day the US officially entered the war. Thus, Dönitz was not charged of waging unrestricted submarine warfare against unarmed neutral shipping by ordering all ships in designated areas in international waters to be sunk without warning.
I think we all already new that.
The question is : is Russia the USA too? It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
Personally I was virulently opposed to GWB's invasion of Iraq, and in a very small minority in the forum I was on at the time (predominately Americans, broad political spectrum).
I was also opposed to the preceding invasion of Afghanistan, and in that instance I believe I was absolutely alone. Being anti-war in Russia must be really tough; in wartime, all right-(un)thinking citizens align themselves automatically behind their leaders, then find the necessary justifications, mostly delusional but in good faith. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
They are subjected to that kind of treatment:
❗️please share. In #Russia, masked man started posting these stickers on the door of people attending anti protest marching or actively stating they are against the war. The stickers say "Here lives a traitor" with the Z and V letters used by the Russian army. pic.twitter.com/ArScDEvA6l— Belarus Free Theatre (@BFreeTheatre) March 21, 2022
❗️please share. In #Russia, masked man started posting these stickers on the door of people attending anti protest marching or actively stating they are against the war. The stickers say "Here lives a traitor" with the Z and V letters used by the Russian army. pic.twitter.com/ArScDEvA6l
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 2 2 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 26 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 31 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 22 3 comments
by Cat - Jan 25 61 comments
by Oui - Jan 9 21 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 13 28 comments
by gmoke - Jan 20
by Oui - Feb 311 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 22 comments
by Oui - Feb 243 comments
by Oui - Feb 16 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 313 comments
by gmoke - Jan 29
by Oui - Jan 2732 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 263 comments
by Cat - Jan 2561 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 223 comments
by Oui - Jan 2110 comments
by Oui - Jan 21
by Oui - Jan 20
by Oui - Jan 1841 comments
by Oui - Jan 1591 comments
by Oui - Jan 145 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 1328 comments
by Oui - Jan 1221 comments
by Oui - Jan 1120 comments