Let me correct some errors in your knowledge:As non ratifiers of the Rome Statutes , in the context of the Ukraine war, the Russians, the Ukrainians and the USA are not in a position to refer any claims of war crimes. There are many obstacles in the way brought about by the none ratification which also impacts on the UNSC ability to deal with any. AFAIK
Let me correct some errors in your knowledge:
First, all three are signatories to the Geneva Conventions. As such, they are "High Contracting Parties", and required to investigate and prosecute war crimes. As Article 10 provides, "Nothing in this Part shall be interpreted as limiting or prejudicing in any way existing or developing rules of international law for purposes other than this Statute." (I should note here that US personnel may also be subject to such jurisdiction as Afghanistan was a 2003 signatory to the ICC.)
Moreover, Ukraine, while not a signatory to the Rome Statute, accepted ICC jurisdiction over its territory in 2013, in accordance with Article 4.2, which provides, "The Court may exercise its functions and powers, as provided in this Statute, on the territory of any State Party and, by special agreement, on the territory of any other State." Ukraine has accepted ICC jurisdiction within its territory (which is where the conflict is occurring), and the ICC has proceeded on that basis.
Second, anyone can file a communication to the ICC: How to file a communication to the ICC-Prosecutor "Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute, any individual, group, or organization can send information on alleged or potential ICC crimes to the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) of the ICC." Many signatory States have also made such referrals.
Third, most of the violations in question here fall under what is deemed "Customary International Law". "Customary international law is made up of rules that come from "a general practice accepted as law" and that exist independent of treaty law. Customary international humanitarian law (IHL) is of crucial importance in today's armed conflicts because it fills gaps left by treaty law in both international and non-international conflicts and so strengthens the protection offered to victims."
The Hague Conventions have been deemed "customary" since the Second World War, and provisions of the Geneva Conventions, regarding civilians in particular, have been deemed "customary" for decades, at least with regard to crimes against peace, crimes against humanity and genocide. "The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg determined that violations of the Hague Regulations amounted to war crimes because these treaty rules had crystallized into customary law by the time of the Second World War. Similarly, the negotiation of the Statute of the International Criminal Court was based on the premise that, to amount to a war crime to be included in the Statute, the conduct had to amount to a violation of a customary rule of international law." ICRC IHL Database.
Finally, the ICC is the only permanent international criminal tribunal, but the UN has frequently established commissions to investigate and prosecute war crimes, such as the United Nations (UN) War Crimes Commission, the World War II tribunals at Nuremberg and Tokyo, and the modern UN ad hoc and hybrid international tribunals for the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Cambodia, Lebanon and others. That pattern, and those examples, have established international investigation and prosecution as customary law.
This is something that I have a great deal of interest in, and I mostly wanted to start a discussion and answer any questions that might come up.That's as clear as mud.
Let me correct some errors in your knowledge:
international investigation and prosecution as customary law.
I hope to see a day whereby ALL war criminals are brought to justice ...
I hope to see the day that all wars are considered criminal. The USG doesn't want that. And it seems that @NWRatCon is avoiding that line of discussion.
I hope to see the day that all wars are considered criminal. The USG doesn't want that. And it seems that @NWRatCon is avoiding that line of discussion.
You're in The Loft now. Instead of ruining this thread, start another thread about criminalizing all wars.
You're in The Loft now. Instead of ruining this thread, start another thread about criminalizing all wars.
Yep, it seems ridiculous that the prosecution of wars of aggression are outside the remit of the ICC. I mean, whether they have any clout or not they still should be allowed to prosecute on that.
The Nuremberg Trials are instructive insomuch that most of the charges were always running alongside that which the allied side had done themselves and so it was decided to indict them for waging a war of aggression, from which all the other crimes stemmed. They had all committed war crimes and there lay a problem
To see the legal clamour and the response to the illegal Russian war on Ukraine is instructive as well. Did you see the same when the US illegally waged war on Iraq? Where were the multiple states instant appeal to the UN for investigations of war crimes there?
As I said earlier, if you don't support actions against ALL criminals and only those of offical state enemies it brings in question , in a huge way, any real commitment to justice and law imo
I think that it's very difficult to argue against the notion that the USG doesn't want international justice to be apply to the USG.
I get that and think it applies to all leaderships BUT the people of those nations supporting it/being indifferent to it and then asking for others to be indicted by it. like as though it didn't matter when they were the criminals lol that's taking the piss out of it completely
IF the international justice system goes after Putin/Russia, then that should open USG/NATO and everyone else up to them. Putin/Russia is quite possibly inadvertently bringing progress to the international justice system. The USG wants to be the international injustice system.
The international justice system is being misused by the West, it seems. I wouldn't be surprised if the "Third World" gets the short end of the stick and the "First World" has a firm grip on the handle end of the stick, using it as a world police baton.
Moderator's Warning: |
Or, maybe, and this is just a thought, you could keep your comments in compliance with the forum? I don't make the rules. The subject matter isn't controversial.Maybe you or a moderator will move this thread to an appropriate forum, if that's called for.
Oh. I see I'm too late.Or, maybe, and this is just a thought, you could keep your comments in compliance with the forum? I don't make the rules. The subject matter isn't controversial.
As I stated at the outset, the idea was to be educational, not adversarial. 'I thought it would be appropriate to start a knowledge thread here so that these discussions can be conducted with information and questions answered forthrightly based upon facts.'
You started well (but couldn't control yourself, I see.Let's just start by saying that the ICC has it's limitations even though it is the mechanism to prosecute for war crimes
The charge of a war of aggression is off the table as it is not covered by ICC jurisdiction.
They may be signatories to the GCs but the likelihood that either Russia or Ukraine will prosecute their own leaderships for the war crimes both have already committed is zero.
The ICC has been investigating the conflict in Donbas and the Maidan protests, along with the situation in Crimea, from 2014 as part of a preliminary investigation. It is likely that both sides will have committed war crimes as is the case above but that this is the preliminary investigation and is already 7 years long doesn't hold up much hope for the veracity of the process nor prospects of any convictions. imo That's the real world for you.
As non signatories to the Rome statutes Russia is not legally bound by them. Another problem.
The Russian veto in the UNSC is another obstacle to a path made to prosecute for war crimes
I hope to see a day whereby ALL war criminals are brought to justice but feel that the selective approach actually undermines the laws themselves and thus they lose legitimacy. The fact that past criminals that have also engaged in the same type of crime/crimes walked free emboldens future wouldbe criminals
I will leave you with a sobering account of how these things play out when it is the powerful that are the criminals.
Nicaragua filed a ICJ case against the US terrorism used against it in the 1980s. and won that case The court found the US guilty of many charges and determined that it pay reparations to Nicaragua. The US dismissed the decision, nobody was prosecuted and no reparations were ever forthcoming. This too is the real world
The old adage that the powerful do what they want and the weak suffer what they must is as obvious in international law trials as it is is international relations. The Hagues record of prosecutuions is a testimony to both that and the racism that is evident in these cases.
Those who push for the application of the law to official enemies only are themselves a BIG part of the problem imo
You started well (but couldn't control yourself, I see.)
Yes, there are complications regarding the ICC. That is one of the difficulties with its structure and jurisdiction. I'm a big proponent of the ICC, and the United States ratifying it.
One of the difficulties in international law is the cumbersome process of enforcement. Intervention is never effective, at least not immediately. It took years to bring Milosevich, and others, to trial. I expect that will be true of this conflict. Trials have not occurred regarding Crimea eight years on.
This was intended, explicitly, to be a discussion about what constitutes a war crime. As with every discussion I've been involved in with you, you then twist it to bash the West in general, and the US specifically, and divert from the topic, usually with vague allegations, over-the-top rhetoric, and incomplete assertions with propagandist overtones. That's not the subject of the thread, nor its purpose.I thought you were not wanting any adversarial tones to the discussion? ...
That said it is becoming more and more apparent that this is a thread not concerned with war crimes in general but war crimes specific to the Ukraine/Russia war/situation. I have informed you that I think those who wish to apply them/ discuss them in a none universal application type way don't actually support them at all and their actions actually completely undermine the very laws they are referencing
Where , exactly did I lose " control" ?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?