This report is about a European initiative to set up a “tribunal” to try President Putin for the crime of aggression for his “invasion” of Ukraine.
The EU’s Foreign Policy representative the former Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas, who is a very good match for the equally dangerously inept and out of her depth Ursula von der Leyen, told reporters that “There is no doubt that Putin has committed the crime of aggression, which is deciding to attack another country”, thus demonstrating that whatever “tribunal” is set up it could not possibly give a fair trial since the verdict has already been announced by the institution setting it up. (Also, a quibble perhaps – but, I don’t think that mental acts like deciding are covered by this law; but this point does speak to Kallas’s lack of credibility).
“Crime of aggression” is defined in international law. As far as I can tell it seems that the ICC could not try Putin for this crime because the ICC cannot try this particular crime. As I understood it this was the whole reason why they needed to set up a special tribunal. I am not an international lawyer (and I certainly won’t get much help from the mainstream media in understanding international law) but as far as I can see, the ICC can only try the crime of aggression (one country invading another – which is in violation of the UN Charter) if the Security Council makes a referral. [1] That would seem to be unlikely in this case, given Russia’s veto. So; I do not understand this in the Guardian: “But it [ICC] does not have the power to try crimes of aggression, as Russia has not ratified the ICC treaty”. That doesn’t really make any sense. The issue of Russia not having ratified the ICC Treaty (like the US) has not been an obstacle for the charges against Putin for “child abduction”; I think they’ve got round that one by Ukraine agreeing and the alleged crimes happened on Ukrainian territory. (Ukraine appears to be in the process of joining the ICC). So; why would that be the issue in this case? I think the Guardian journalist, a Jennifer Rankin, is confused.
European political leaders love “being in the right”. It is a key part of the propaganda of course that they follow “the rule of law” and everyone else doesn’t. I think at the personal level European leaders also have a deep need to be “on the right side of the law”. So; they find legal experts and barristers to come up with elaborate justifications for their actions in terms of the law. The UK’s state Attorney General service, for example, managed to produce a document justifying the UK’s involvement in the …. crime of aggression against Iraq in 2003. They are trying as hard as they can to come up with a legal case for stealing the Russian central bank assets held in Europe. They love and need to be in the legal right. However; they also seem to have a capacity to simply close their eyes when this approach would cause them problems. They have simply done nothing (part from some very tokenistic and limited sanctions) in relation to Israel’s massive war crimes and possible genocide in Gaza and violations in the West Bank. They continue to fully support Israel’s actions in Gaza and the West Bank despite it being clear that there are crimes – warrants have been issued by the ICC against Israeli leaders and the ICJ has issued a provisional warning about possible genocide in relation to Gaza.
Putin also likes to justify his actions in legal terms. But, at least, he does it quite lightly, acknowledging that it is to some extent an exercise in sophistry. For example; he explained that when Russia annexed Crimea they did not break any agreements on troop numbers because at no point did they exceed the actual number specified in their agreement with Ukraine. But – he did this with a light touch and a smile. Without this deluded seriousness of the von der Leyen’s of this world.
As far as this proposed tribunal goes, (and the ICC charges); do European leaders think this is going to help anything? Are they thinking that Putin will be handed over like Milosevich was? I suspect they don’t know Russia very well.
Finally. Let’s celebrate this tribunal to try International leaders for the crime of aggression. After Putin, they can put Bush (Iraq), Blair (Iraq and Serbia), Cameron (Libya), Sarkozy (Libya) on trial for their crimes. Oh, no, I missed something. It is a “special” tribunal. The kind they have for Slavs.
Notes
- https://www.juragentium.org/topics/wlgo/cortona/en/pietropa.htm (See the last paragraph before the conclusion) https://www.mjil.ru/jour/article/view/183?locale=en_US https://crimeofaggression.info/role-of-the-icc/conditions-for-action-by-the-icc