Description

Introduction

Inter arma enim silent leges “in times of war, the laws are silent” --Cicero

“War and treaty-breakers should be stripped of the glamour of national heroes and exposed as what they really are—plain, ordinary murderers.” Joseph Baker Kennan, American war crimes prosecutor Nuremburg, Germany 1945

After the end of World War Two the victorious allies which included the U.S. and the Soviet Union made the decision to place the leaders of Nazi Germany and the militarist leaders of Japan on trial for war crimes. To do this they needed to establish legal principals to hold those individuals accountable. Ultimately they decided to indict these individuals for violations that included:

Crimes against peace that included planning and initiating an aggressive war in violation of international treaties.
Violations of the laws and customs of war that included wanton murder, use of slave labor, ill-treatment of prisoners-of-war, killing hostages, plunder, and wanton destruction of civilian cities and homes.
Crimes against humanity that included religious and racial persecution, mass exterminations, enslavement, deportation, and torture against civilian populations before and during the war

In attempting to justify their actions they had to deal with a number of difficult questions such as:

Were there any existing precedents defining war crimes?
Should the leaders be held accountable for alleged crimes that happened before the war?
Was merely starting the war a crime?
How do you explain similar actions taken by the allies?
Was merely “following orders” a legal defense?
Was this merely “victors” justice?
Can one be convicted of violating a law that did not exist before the alleged crime—ipso facto?
What if any laws existed in either Germany or Japan that might justify the actions taken by the defendants, and should they be taken into consideration?

Now the world has watched with anxiety, horror, and almost disbelief as the Russian military has brazenly poured across the borders of the sovereign nation of Ukraine. This has been an invasion ordered by Russian President Vladimir Putin. The Ukrainian military has vowed to defend every inch of their territory and the on-going struggle, led by their President, Volodymyr Zelensky, has demonstrated their will to make good on that resolve.

Despite the fact that the war is barely over a week old, dozens of nations, including the U.S. and other NATO nations have requested the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague begin an investigation into possible war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Russian invasion of Ukraine order by Vladimir Putin. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said that Russian bombing of innocent Ukrainian civilians clearly qualifies as a war crime.

The ICC investigates and tries people charged with genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of waging aggressive warfare. Russia does not recognize the legal authority of the ICC, Ukraine, however, does. The ICC began operating in July 2002 and, so far, forty-five people have been indicted by the court. They include Ugandan rebel leader Joseph Kony, former President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, ex-Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta and former Libyan head of state Muammar Gaddaf.

In the United States and many other nations in the West we are seeing on TV and online the current war in Ukraine, undoubtedly with moral outrage. However, in this activity students will be challenged to use the included documents and further research to draw up and present the legal case for an indictment against the Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Update

March 17, 2023 According to Time, the Washington Post and other news organizations a major step forward has been taken to recognize Russian war crimes in Ukraine. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin. The charges focus on the thousands of Ukrainian children who have been kidnapped and transported to Russia.

View AllClose