THE IMPORTANCE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

Daniel N. Clark

I believe that it is important to understand the principles and provisions of international law, both as they relate to our domestic law in the United States, and in terms of the obligations they impose on states and individuals before international courts and the international community. These principles and processes are particularly important to us for the issues of war and peace that we currently confront.

Although I am not an expert in international law, I have taken some interest in it over the years, beginning with a course on the UN and International Organizations when I was a political science major at Whitman College in the 1960’s. As an attorney, I have also had some professional involvement with issues of international law in connection with the defense of protestors charged with blocking access to the Hanford Nuclear Reservation for several years in the latter part of the 1980’s, when my clients claimed to be preventing Crimes Against Peace and other violations of international law they believed were being committed by the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction at Hanford and the government’s plans to deploy them in a preemptive strike as part of a war of aggression.

International Law as the Law of the Land in the United States

To begin with, we need to understand that two sources of international law form part of our law of the land in the United States. The first source is treaties the U.S. has entered into. Article VI, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the supremacy clause, provides that

This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

The second source of our own law is “customary rules” of international law. As the U.S. Supreme Court held in the Paquete Habana case in 1900, customary international law is equally a “part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction as often as questions of right depending on it are duly presented for their determination.”

Among the treaties to which the United States is a signatory, together with the overwhelming majority of nations, are those that prohibit weapons of widespread destruction, and the threat of, planning, or preparation for a war of aggression or a war violating international agreements. Specifically prohibited are: weapons of mass or indiscriminate destruction, weapons which, if used, would destroy the distinction between combatant and noncombatant, chemical and biological weapons, and weapons which would contaminate an area so that it would not be possible to insure the health and safety of civilians. Most of these prohibitions have also become recognized principles of customary international law through universal acceptance over the years.

The United Nations

One of the treaties the United States has signed and in fact helped draft is the United Nations Charter, the primary purpose of which was peacekeeping and the prevention of aggressive war. Under the UN Charter, there are only two circumstances in which the use of force is permissible. Article 51 contains the right of self-defense by providing that:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

The only other lawfully permitted use of armed force is when the Security Council has directed or authorized use of force under Articles 42 through 48, which under Article 48 “…shall be taken by all of the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.”

While the right of self-defense under Article 51 may arguably apply to an imminent attack as well as a present attack, it unquestionably does not apply to anything less than an actually planned and prepared attack.

The Nuremberg Principles and Crimes Against Peace

When international law began to be developed in medieval times, in the absence of an agreed treaty, truce, or safe conduct agreement, war was the default condition and rulers could treat foreigners with absolute impunity. In other words, unless protected by a particular peace treaty or its equivalent, nations were presumed to be at unrestricted war. Restrictions on the way war was prosecuted were gradually developed over the centuries and resulted in the Hague Conventions of 1907 and the later Geneva Conventions of 1949, protecting noncombatants as well as combatants from some of war’s worst excesses.

However, until the Nuremberg Tribunals of 1945, and the related Tokyo War Crimes Trials, the only international judicial mechanism for enforcing these laws was the International Court of Justice, or World Court, in The Hague, which can only hear matters involving states, not individuals.

With the adoption of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal in 1945 for the trial of the Nazi war criminals, and the tribunal’s adoption of the Nuremberg Principles of individual responsibility for Crimes Against Peace, War Crimes, and Crimes Against Humanity, which were later adopted in 1946 by the UN General Assembly, international law has greatly extended its reach and has taken on a new relevance.

More recent war crimes tribunals in the 1990’s in former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda have given renewed life to individual responsibility under international law, and have led to the unprecedented establishment of the International Criminal Court —which is a standing body for the prosecution of individuals charged with international crimes under the Nuremberg Principles and other provisions of the emerging International Criminal Code.

Relevance of International Law to Current Events

Applying these principles to current events, quite a few people appear to want to punish and even kill Saddam Hussein for his violations of UN resolutions and his alleged criminal actions. Our president says he feels so strongly about this that he not only wants to remove or kill Saddam, he is ready to launch an unauthorized, aggressive war against the entire Iraqi nation, even though that would be in violation of the UN Charter, and be a Crime Against Peace under international law.

Terrorist Osama Bin Laden has survived our war in Afghanistan, though thousands of innocent men, women, and Afghani children have not. Similarly, Saddam Hussein may well survive any attack on Iraq. Instead, it will be the people of Iraq who will be wounded and killed, people who are no more to blame for the actions of their head of state than we are for the actions of our president—and maybe less so, since they don’t enjoy the freedom of dissent and a freely elected government as we do.

When national leaders commit wrongs such as defying UN resolutions or the UN Charter, as Hussein is alleged to have done and Bush promises to do, what should we do about it? When they commit Crimes Against Peace by waging unauthorized, aggressive war as Hussein did by invading Kuwait and Bush threatens to do against Iraq, is it appropriate for us to attack and kill their citizens, including civilians?

Judging by the destruction and death in New York on September 11, 2001, Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda appear to believe it is right to punish citizens of nations whose leaders they disagree with, as does George Bush in planning to attack Baghdad in our name.

In contrast, it would appear that the moral and legal remedy for acts in defiance of international law is to bring the evidence before internationally recognized tribunals and to hold the leaders who take such actions accountable, by punishing the guilty, rather than their citizens—whether Iraqi or American.

I urge us all, including leaders, to live up to our moral and legal principles by protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty. War will not do that.

March 5, 2003, Walla Walla Union-Bulletin

The Ongoing Threat of Nuclear Weapons

The initial mission of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation was to counter efforts by Nazi Germany to develop the world’s first atom bomb in order to control the destiny of Europe and beyond, and that mission appears to have been well justified.

After the German surrender on May 7, 1945, the further decision to continue with the test of the first nuclear explosion at the Alamogordo Bombing Range in New Mexico may also have been justified by its ability to demonstrate the devastating power of an atom bomb to Japan which gave the United States an opportunity to convince the Japanese government to end the war.

The use of these weapons by the United States against Japanese cities, however, resulting in massive and inhumane loss of civilian life in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, particularly without having first demonstrated their power to the Japanese government with a demand for surrender, violated international law, including the prohibition against the use of weapons which cause mass and indiscriminate destruction, weapons which destroy the distinction between combatant and noncombatant, weapons which have long-term biological and genetic effects, and weapons which so contaminate a conquered area that the conqueror cannot insure the health and safety of conquered civilians.

In addition to the acknowledged devastation caused to Japanese cities and civilian populations, the Manhattan Project and thereafter the continued development of nuclear weapons material at Hanford has contributed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons throughout the world.

Though there have been efforts to avoid this through the establishment of international agreements for the reduction and eventual elimination of such weapons, there is clear evidence of the present renewal of the nuclear arms race by nations large and small seeking the protection or power of nuclear weapons despite the risk of harm to humanity and the earth.

In considering the future of such weapons, it is important to recognize the decision of the International Court of Justice in response to the request of the United Nations General Assembly for the court’s opinion on the legality of both the use or threat to use nuclear weapons. The 1996 decision of the Court is summarized below.

Summaries of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the International Court of Justice

LEGALITY OF THE THREAT OR USE OF

NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996

The Court handed down its advisory opinion on the request made by the General Assembly of the United Nations on the question of the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons on July 8, 1996. After providing the court’s reasoning, the final paragraph of the opinion reads as follows:

"…THE COURT,

(1) By thirteen votes to one, decides to comply with the request for an advisory opinion;

(2) Replies in the following manner to the question put by the General Assembly:

A. Unanimously,

There is in neither customary nor conventional international law any specific authorization of the threat or use of nuclear weapons;

B. By eleven votes to three,

There is in neither customary nor conventional international law any comprehensive and universal prohibition of the threat or use of nuclear weapons as such;

C. Unanimously,

A threat or use of force by means of nuclear weapons that is contrary to Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations and that fails to meet all the requirements of Article 51 is unlawful;

D. Unanimously,

A threat or use of nuclear weapons should also be compatible with the requirements of the international law applicable in armed conflict, particularly those of the principles and rules of international humanitarian law, as well as with specific obligations under treaties and other undertakings which expressly deal with nuclear weapons;

E. By seven votes to seven, by the President's casting vote,

It follows from the above-mentioned requirements that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law;

However, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defense, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake;

F. Unanimously,

There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.

It is clear from the above decision that the threat to use or the actual use of nuclear weapons constitutes a war crime, the only possible exception being the extreme case when such an action would be necessary for the actual survival of a state, which was not the case in the U.S. nuclear attack on Japan.

What is also clear is that in view of the illegality of the use or threat to use nuclear weapons except in circumstances of actual survival, all nations, as decided by the unanimous decision of the court, have an obligation to engage in and to conclude good faith negotiations to bring about the elimination of such weapons.

This international obligation would also be an appropriate subject of citizen action for the protection of humanity and the earth in order to bring nuclear and other nations to the table to adopt a time frame and structure for the required work of eliminating nuclear weapons, and verifying this has been done.

In addition, as urged in the article contained in Appendix I which I wrote in the lead-up to the U.S. war against Iraq, when leaders commit criminal acts in defiance of international law, instead of launching a general attack against their nation for the leaders’ wrongdoings, in order to live up to the moral and legal principle of protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty, the appropriate remedy for such acts would be to bring the individuals before the International Criminal Court, a tribunal specifically authorized to hold leaders and other individuals accountable under international law, and to punish only those found guilty instead of their fellow citizens.

It would also be appropriate for conscientious citizens to take actions themselves to insist on the participation of their nations in the jurisdiction and proceedings of the international tribunal.

November 28, 2021, Daniel N. Clark

From “Hanford Nuclear Reservation—Civil Disobedience in the 1980s”

PETITION FOR UNITED STATES MEMBERSHIP IN THE

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT AND PROSECUTION OF PUTIN

Whereas, the leader of every nation should be subject to prosecution for international crimes, including War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity, and Crimes of Aggression, and no head of state should be immune from such prosecution, and

Whereas, Russian President Vladimir Putin has threatened, planned, and carried out an invasion and war against the nation of Ukraine and other actions in violation of international law and the prohibition of Crimes against Humanity and against Peace; and

Whereas, one hundred twenty-three nations have joined the International Criminal Court following the signing of the Rome Statute by the United States and other nations on December 21, 2000 to create a Court having jurisdiction to prosecute such crimes, and Russia, the United States, and China have not done so, and

Whereas, the world can no longer tolerate lawless actions of international criminals which threaten peace, human dignity, and global survival,

Now, therefore, the undersigned citizens of the United States hereby call for official action by the United States Congress and the President of the United States to ratify the International Criminal Court statute, and call on the Court to prosecute Vladimir Putin and any other head of state committing these grave crimes under international law in the interests of all nations and peoples.

Name Signature City, State & Nation Date

_________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________

When completed, please provide a copy of this signed petition to your elected representatives and email it to prosecuteputin@gmail.com.

You can also sign the petition online here.

Thanks for working for a more peaceful and just world.

PETITION FOR PROSECUTION OF VLADIMIR PUTIN FOR WAR CRIMES

Whereas, Russian President Vladimir Putin has threatened, planned, and carried out an invasion and war against the nation of Ukraine and other actions in violation of international prohibitions of crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression; and

Whereas, such actions are subject to prosecution in the International Criminal Court, and in the courts of any nation whose laws prohibit such crimes under the principle of universal jurisdiction provided in the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

Now, therefore, We, the undersigned citizens, hereby call for official action as follows:

1. For the prompt opening and conclusion of an investigation of these actions by the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, and the commencement of prosecution by the Court including potential detention of defendants.

2. For the prompt commencement of prosecution in a U.S. federal court pursuant to Title 18 US Code, Section 2441 in the event any national of the United States is injured by the criminal acts described above.

3. For the full cooperation by the United States and other governments in any proceedings for the enforcement of these provisions of international law, and for other measures to bring a prompt halt to the described violations in the interests of all nations and peoples.

Name Signature City, State & Nation Date

_________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________

When completed, please forward this signed petition to the International Criminal Court at otp.informationdesk@icc-cpi.int, and also provide a copy to your elected representatives and to ProsecutePutin@gmail.com.

You can also sign the petition online here.

H.Res 855 - US to join ICC

Text: H.Res.855 — 116th Congress (2019-2020)All Information (Except Text)

Listen to this page

There is one version of the bill.

Text available as:

XML/HTML (6KB)
XML/HTML (new window) (6KB)
TXT (5KB)
PDF (314KB) (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip?

Shown Here:
Introduced in House (02/12/2020)

116th CONGRESS
2d Session

..... .....House Resolution 855

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States should ratify the Rome Statute and join the International Criminal Court.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 12, 2020

Ms. Omar submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States should ratify the Rome Statute and join the International Criminal Court.

Whereas crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes are uniquely heinous and of global concern;

Whereas the United States has been a global leader in the field of international criminal justice for atrocity crimes since the Nuremberg Trials;

Whereas the fundamental principles of the rule of law and accountability for atrocity crimes are central to the United States values and interests at home and abroad;

Whereas the United States has demonstrated its commitment to these values and interests by tangibly supporting numerous domestic, international, and hybrid courts for atrocity crimes, including the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the Special Court for Sierra Leone, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, the Extraordinary African Chambers, and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon;

Whereas the United States further demonstrates this commitment by being party to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and the Geneva Conventions;

Whereas the United States further demonstrates this commitment by the existence of offices at the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security that are dedicated to pursuing and apprehending the perpetrators of atrocity crimes, as well as the existence of a dedicated Office of Global Criminal Justice at the Department of State;

Whereas the United States signed the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on December 31, 2000, but has yet to ratify the statute and join the Court as a full member;

Whereas the International Criminal Court is an important institution in the global fight against impunity for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide;

Whereas the International Criminal Court operates on the principle of complementarity and as a court of last resort;

Whereas because of these principles, cases are not admissible before the International Criminal Court where they are being genuinely investigated or prosecuted before domestic courts;

Whereas despite the United States not being a member of the Court, administrations of both political parties have recognized its utility for the national interests of the United States;

Whereas only by ratifying the Rome Statute and becoming a member of the International Criminal Court can the United States credibly shape the Court’s activities and priorities;

Whereas the vast majority of the United States oldest and closest allies are state parties to the International Criminal Court; and

Whereas it is in line with American values, interests, and proud history as a global leader in the fight against impunity and for justice that the United States becomes a full member of the International Criminal Court: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that—

(1) the United States Senate should ratify the Rome Statute;

(2) any visa restrictions put in place by the Department of State on International Criminal Court personnel should be lifted; and

(3) the United States should use its voice, vote, and influence in bilateral and multilateral relationships and institutions to encourage foreign countries that are not party to the International Criminal Court to join the International Criminal Court.

Statement : 2 March 2022 | Українська мова, Русский

Statement of ICC Prosecutor, Karim A.A. Khan QC, on the Situation in Ukraine: Receipt of Referrals from 39 States Parties and the Opening of an Investigation

On 28 February, I announced my decision to seek authorisation to open an investigation into the Situation in Ukraine, on the basis of my Office's earlier conclusions arising from its preliminary examination, and encompassing any new alleged crimes falling within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court ("ICC" or "the Court").

In the same statement, I indicated that active investigations by my Office would be significantly expedited if a State Party to the Rome Statute (the "Statute") were to refer the situation to my Office, as provided in article 14 of the Statute.

Today, I can confirm that, my Office has received referrals of the Situation in Ukraine from the following 39 ICC States Parties: Republic of Albania, Commonwealth of Australia, Republic of Austria, Kingdom of Belgium, Republic of Bulgaria, Canada, Republic of Colombia, Republic of Costa Rica, Republic of Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Estonia, Republic of Finland, Republic of France, Georgia, Federal Republic of Germany, Hellenic Republic, Hungary, Republic of Iceland, Ireland, Republic of Italy, Republic of Latvia, Principality of Liechtenstein, Republic of Lithuania, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Republic of Malta, New Zealand, Kingdom of Norway, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Republic of Poland, Republic of Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Republic of Slovenia, Kingdom of Spain, Kingdom of Sweden, Swiss Confederation, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. These referrals enable my Office to proceed with opening an investigation into the Situation in Ukraine from 21 November 2013 onwards, thereby encompassing within its scope any past and present allegations of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide committed on any part of the territory of Ukraine by any person.

I have notified the ICC Presidency a few moments ago of my decision to immediately proceed with active investigations in the Situation. Our work in the collection of evidence has now commenced.

As mentioned in my statement of 28 February, in its preliminary examination of the Situation in Ukraine, my Office had already found a reasonable basis to believe crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court had been committed, and had identified potential cases that would be admissible.

As I proceed to discharge my responsibilities, I will seek to engage with all relevant stakeholders and parties to the conflict, ensuring that investigations by my Office are conducted objectively and independently, with full respect for the principle of complementarity. In doing so, we will remain focused on our core objective: ensuring accountability for crimes falling within ICC jurisdiction.

The support of States Parties and the international community more broadly will be essential as we seek to meet the inherent challenges faced in the conduct of these investigations. I will therefore seek the partnership and contributions of all States in order to address our need for additional resources across all situations addressed by my Office.

With an active investigation now underway, I repeat my call to all those engaged in hostilities in Ukraine to adhere strictly to the applicable rules of international humanitarian law. No individual in the Ukraine situation has a licence to commit crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

If anyone has information relevant to the Situation, this can be submitted to the Office of the Prosecutor via: otp.informationdesk@icc-cpi.int.

For further details on "preliminary examinations" and "situations and cases" before the Court, click here, and here.

Source: Office of the Prosecutor | Contact: OTPNewsDesk@icc-cpi.int

Statement : 28 February 2022

Statement of International Criminal Court Prosecutor, Karim A.A. Khan QC, on the Situation in Ukraine: “I have decided to proceed with opening an investigation.”

Last Friday, I expressed my increasing concern, echoing those of world leaders and citizens of the world alike, over the events unfolding in Ukraine.

Today, I wish to announce that I have decided to proceed with opening an investigation into the Situation in Ukraine, as rapidly as possible.

Ukraine is not a State Party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court ("ICC" or the "Court"), so cannot itself refer the situation to my Office. But it has twice exercised its prerogatives to legally accept the Court's jurisdiction over alleged crimes under the Rome Statute occurring on its territory, should the Court choose to exercise it. The first declaration lodged by the Government of Ukraine accepted ICC jurisdiction with respect to alleged crimes committed on Ukrainian territory from 21 November 2013 to 22 February 2014. The second declaration extended this time period on an open-ended basis to encompass ongoing alleged crimes committed throughout the territory of Ukraine from 20 February 2014 onwards.

I have reviewed the Office's conclusions arising from the preliminary examination of the Situation in Ukraine, and have confirmed that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with opening an investigation. In particular, I am satisfied that there is a reasonable basis to believe that both alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity have been committed in Ukraine in relation to the events already assessed during the preliminary examination by the Office. Given the expansion of the conflict in recent days, it is my intention that this investigation will also encompass any new alleged crimes falling within the jurisdiction of my Office that are committed by any party to the conflict on any part of the territory of Ukraine.

I have already tasked my team to explore all evidence preservation opportunities. The next step is to proceed with the process of seeking and obtaining authorisation from the Pre-Trial Chamber of the Court to open an investigation. An alternative route set out in the Statute that could further expedite matters would be for an ICC State Party to refer the situation to my Office, which would allow us to actively and immediately proceed with the Office's independent and objective investigations.

I will also be asking for the support of all States Parties and the international community as a whole as my Office sets about its investigations. I will be calling for additional budgetary support, for voluntary contributions to support all our situations, and for the loan of gratis personnel. The importance and urgency of our mission is too serious to be held hostage to lack of means.

I will continue to closely follow developments on the ground in Ukraine, and again call for restraint and strict adherence to the applicable rules of international humanitarian law.

If anyone has information relevant to the Situation, this can be submitted to my Office via: otp.informationdesk@icc-cpi.int.

For further details on "preliminary examinations" and "situations and cases" before the Court, click here, and here.

Source: Office of the Prosecutor | Contact: OTPNewsDesk@icc-cpi.int

Boris Johnson accuses Vladimir Putin of committing war crimes in Ukraine over Russia’s use of cluster bombs

The Prime Minister said the Russian leader’s use of munitions in attacks on Ukraine constituted a war crime

TOPSHOT - The scene of a fire at the Economy Department building of Karazin Kharkiv National University, allegedly hit during recent shelling by Russia, on March 2, 2022. (Photo by Sergey BOBOK / AFP) (Photo by SERGEY BOBOK/AFP via Getty Images) — The scene of a fire at the Economy Department building of Karazin Kharkiv National University, allegedly hit during recent shelling by Russia (Getty)

By Richard Vaughan

March 2, 2022 12:48 pm(Updated 1:21 pm)

Vladimir Putin is guilty of committing war crimes following his use of indiscriminate cluster bombs, Boris Johnson has told MPs.

It is the first time that the Government has directly accused the Russian President of being guilty of war crimes since he launched his invasion of Ukraine.

The Prime Minister was responding to a question in the Commons when he was asked whether Putin was a war criminal and should face trial in the Hague.

SNP leader Ian Blackford stated that civilians were being “murdered in cold blood” by Russian troops, and he called for the UK to support prosecuting Mr Putin for the “crime of aggression” by a state.

Mr Blackford said: “With every passing hour the world is witnessing the horrors of Putin’s war in Ukraine… these are war crimes happening in Europe right now. Vladimir Putin is a war criminal and one day soon Putin must face justice in The Hague.

“To prosecute Putin and his regime the full range of war crime charges need to be used including the crime of aggression by a state, but the UK’s always refused to sign up to the prosecution of this crime in international law.”

He asked whether Mr Johnson would look to change the War Crimes Act and push for the Russian leader to be tried for war crimes.

The Prime Minister replied: “What we have seen already from Vladimir Putin’s regime in the use of the munitions that they have been dropping on civilians in my view fully qualifies as a war crime.”

He added that the International Criminal Court prosecutor was already looking into whether Mr Putin was guilty of committing war crimes.

It comes after the Russian army bombarded civilian areas of the Ukrainian city Kharkiv with cluster bombs and multiple launch rocket systems in the past few days.

Western officials had previously warned that Mr Putin would turn to more lethal weaponry, such as the use of thermobaric rockets, also known as “vacuum bombs”, which can collapse the lungs of people near the blast.

Mr Johnson’s comments go further than those made by his deputy Dominic Raab on Tuesday, who said Mr Putin and his commanders must be held accountable for any war crimes during Moscow’s siege on Ukraine.

He told Sky News: “Those that engage in war crimes will be held to account.”

He said it must be clear to “both to Putin but also to commanders in Moscow and on the ground in Ukraine that they will be held accountable for any violations of the laws of war”.hey will be held accountable for any

Putin is a war criminal and should be treated as such

Throughout his long political career, the Russian president has been accused of countless atrocities.

Mark Kersten
Consultant at the Wayamo Foundation and a Fellow at the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto.

In this video grab taken from a handout footage made available on February 24, 2022 on the official web site of the Russian President (kremlin.ru) Russian President Vladimir Putin addresses the nation at the Kremlin in Moscow. - Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a "military operation" in Ukraine on February 24 and called on soldiers there to lay down their arms, defying Western outrage and global appeals not to launch a war. — Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a "military operation" against Ukraine on February 24 [Handout via AFP]

On February 24, during a United Nations Security Council meeting, Sergiy Kyslytsya, Ukraine’s ambassador to the UN was informed that Russia’s invasion of his country had begun. Moments later, Kyslytsya turned to his Russian counterpart Vassily Nebenzia and told him: “There is no purgatory for war criminals. They go straight to hell.”

There is little doubt that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a violation of international law and the UN Charter. It is also a crime. It should be called as such, not only by human rights and justice advocates, but by states.

In recent days, many state representatives, media, and scholars have rightly gone to great lengths to stress the abhorrent behaviour of Russian President Vladimir Putin. But it is almost as if what Putin is doing now is particularly egregious. This invasion is the Russian president’s calling card and war crimes are his signature.

Everything transpiring now in Ukraine, including reports of rocket attacks on civilian buildings, is par for Putin’s course. Days ago, international law scholars Frédéric Mégret and Kevin Jon Heller predicted that Putin would commit the crime of aggression by invading Ukraine. No one should be surprised if the situation gets worse. Putin’s personal biography is littered with the embrace of atrocity crimes and human rights violations.

Putin came to fame and eventually to power on the back of Russia’s 1999-2000 war in Chechnya. In annihilating the breakaway region’s separatist movement, the Russian government deployed horrific levels of violence. Human Rights Watch has documented legions of atrocities, including allegations that Russian forces “indiscriminately and disproportionately bombed and shelled civilian objects” and “ignored their Geneva convention obligations to focus their attacks on combatants”. The West responded meekly to allegations of war crimes. Rather than being condemned, Putin was largely hailed as a leader who promised Russians a better life and the West – better relations, when he replaced Boris Yeltsin as Russian president. That was not to be the case.

In 2008, Putin turned his attention to Georgia and ordered Russian troops – whom he called “peacekeepers” – to invade the Georgian provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. They were not there to keep the peace. While Moscow invoked humanitarian language in arguing that it had a “responsibility to protect” its citizens in both territories, Russian forces indiscriminately attacked civilian targets – a war crime.

In 2014, Putin invaded Ukraine, leading to the illegal occupation and annexation of Crimea while also igniting a conflict in Luhansk and Donetsk that has cost an estimated 14,000 lives. During the violence, Russian-backed militants bombed Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine, killing all 298 people onboard. Attacks by Russian forces against civilians were commonplace and allegations of murder and torture were reported in detention facilities – referred to as “Europe’s last concentration camps” – run by pro-Russian separatists.

These are just a tiny cross-section of Putin’s crimes that have been documented by human rights and investigation bodies.

The alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Putin’s forces also galvanised the International Criminal Court (ICC), which opened an investigation into atrocities in Georgia in 2016 and completed an examination into those committed in Ukraine in 2020, concluding that there were reasonable grounds to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity had been committed.

And then there’s Syria. For a decade, Putin has propped up Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad despite evidence of atrocities that war crimes investigators believe is the “strongest since the Nuremberg trials”.

Russian air forces have bombed hospitals and attacked civil defence forces working to rescue survivors in the wake of bombing raids. A 2020 report by the Commission of Inquiry on Syria, set up by the UN Human Rights Council, found that Russia had bombed civilian areas in violation of the Geneva Conventions. As Kenneth Ward of the Arms Control Association has observed, Russia was also an enabler of chemical weapons attacks in Syria. Moscow protected Syria from any judicial scrutiny over its atrocities committed with and on behalf of Assad, by vetoing a referral of Syria to the ICC in 2014.

As if involvement in widespread and systematic international crimes was not enough, Putin has also been accused of ordering the poisonings of Russian dissidents in the UK and the imprisonment of pro-democracy and human rights advocates. He has also been linked to corruption on a scale that amounts to a human rights violation.

None of this is the fault of Russia. Putin is not Russia and Russia is not Putin. In the past few days, thousands of demonstrators across Russia have taken to the streets to protest the invasion of Ukraine, while “No to War” graffiti has popped up in numerous Russian cities. It is Putin – and his coterie of sycophants and enablers – who must be held to account.

Addressing the Russian president’s actions now is not just about the attacks on Donetsk, Luhansk or the outskirts of Kyiv. It is also about the atrocities he has committed with impunity in Georgia, Crimea, Syria, Chechnya and elsewhere. It is about the atrocities that he has perpetrated and that too many states have turned a blind eye to in the false hope that he could be contained and reasoned with.

As armoured columns drove into Ukraine, Canadian Ambassador to the UN Bob Rae called Putin “a war criminal”. It may be that Putin never faces justice at an international tribunal like the ICC. But the international community should organise the collection and preservation of evidence of his atrocities as they happen, in real-time before the eyes of the world. Maybe one day that evidence can be used to prosecute Putin and his regime. Above all, states should treat Putin for what he is and what he has done: a criminal for whom the laws of war and the norms of humanity mean nothing at all.

violations of the laws of war”. they will be held accountable for any violations of the laws of war”.

Walla Thoughts

IMPORTANCE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE THREAT OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Prosecute Putin

Text: H.Res.855 — 116th Congress (2019-2020)All Information (Except Text)

Text available as:

Shown Here:
Introduced in House (02/12/2020)

Statement of ICC Prosecutor, Karim A.A. Khan QC, on the Situation in Ukraine: Receipt of Referrals from 39 States Parties and the Opening of an Investigation

Boris Johnson accuses Vladimir Putin of committing war crimes in Ukraine over Russia’s use of cluster bombs

The Prime Minister said the Russian leader’s use of munitions in attacks on Ukraine constituted a war crime

Putin is a war criminal and should be treated as such

Report Abuse

IMPORTANCE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE THREAT OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Text: H.Res.855 — 116th Congress (2019-2020)All Information (Except Text)

Text available as:

Shown Here:Introduced in House (02/12/2020)

Statement of ICC Prosecutor, Karim A.A. Khan QC, on the Situation in Ukraine: Receipt of Referrals from 39 States Parties and the Opening of an Investigation

Boris Johnson accuses Vladimir Putin of committing war crimes in Ukraine over Russia’s use of cluster bombs

The Prime Minister said the Russian leader’s use of munitions in attacks on Ukraine constituted a war crime

Shown Here:
Introduced in House (02/12/2020)