Putin as a War Criminal

 The arguments justifying calling Vladimir Putin a war criminal stem from a combination of his alleged command responsibility as the head of the state and the International Criminal Court's (ICC) formal indictment for specific crimes related to the war in Ukraine.

The case for calling him a war criminal is divided into three main categories under international law:

---

1. The Crime of Aggression

The primary argument against Vladimir Putin is for initiating the Crime of Aggression—the "supreme international crime"—by launching a full-scale, unprovoked invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

• This act violates Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which requires member states to refrain from the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.

• While the ICC currently faces jurisdictional issues prosecuting the Crime of Aggression against Russia's leadership (as Russia is not a party to the Rome Statute), many nations and international legal experts recognize the invasion itself as the foundational criminal act.

---

2. International Criminal Court (ICC) Arrest Warrant

On March 17, 2023, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin, holding him allegedly responsible for two specific war crimes committed in Ukraine. This warrant establishes a formal legal basis for the charge.

The warrant alleges responsibility for the following:

• Unlawful Deportation of Population (Children): The mass removal of Ukrainian children from occupied areas of Ukraine.

• Unlawful Transfer of Population (Children): The transfer of these children to the Russian Federation.

Justification for Individual Responsibility

The ICC warrant states there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Putin bears individual criminal responsibility for these acts for two reasons:

1. Direct Involvement/Joint Commission: He allegedly committed the acts directly, jointly with others, and/or through others.

2. Failure to Exercise Proper Control (Command Responsibility): He allegedly failed to exercise proper control over the civilian and military subordinates who committed or allowed the commission of the crimes while under his effective authority.

---

3. Broader War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity

Human rights organizations (like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch) and international investigative bodies have documented a litany of additional crimes allegedly committed by Russian forces and leadership that fall under the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute. Putin is implicated through his role as Commander-in-Chief.

These accusations include:

• Directing Attacks Against Civilian Objects: The widespread and systematic targeting of civilian infrastructure, including residential buildings, hospitals, schools, and energy infrastructure, which are protected under the laws of war.

• Indiscriminate Attacks: The use of explosive weapons with wide-area effects (such as indiscriminate shelling and missile strikes) in densely populated civilian areas, causing excessive incidental harm.

• Torture and Sexual Violence: Reports of widespread torture, rape, enforced disappearances, and summary executions of civilians and Ukrainian prisoners of war in occupied territories (e.g., Bucha, Izium).

• Forced Detention and Filtration: The mass detention and abusive screening, often called "filtration," of Ukrainian civilians, sometimes followed by forced transfer to Russia.

These documented actions—the systemic nature of which indicates a policy rather than isolated incidents—provide the factual evidence used to argue for Putin's ultimate responsibility.

Gaza and the International Criminal Court

Articial Intelligence translation of my opinion piece of this week published in Portuguese in daily national newspaper Diário de Notícias (26 JAN 2024)

Gaza: an earthquake in international politics

Victor Angelo

The Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs was in Brussels this week, at the invitation of Josep Borrell. The purpose was to allow the minister to discuss three major issues with his European counterparts: the dramatic situation in which the population of Gaza finds itself, within the framework of the enormous military intervention ordered by Benjamin Netanyahu; the requirements for an immediate ceasefire; and the dimensions and phases of preparing a peace plan.

Borrell was aware of Security Council Resolution 2720 (2023), which approved on December 22 the implementation of humanitarian pauses and the opening of corridors that would allow essential goods for their survival to be delivered to the inhabitants of Gaza. The Security Council had recognized the extreme urgency of humanitarian assistance.

A month later, it is undeniable that the situation continues to worsen. Israel reveals absolute disrespect for the Security Council. Controls became even tighter. The hundreds of humanitarian trucks that should enter Gaza daily are faced with a tragically different reality. Borrell mentioned that the average would be around eighty trucks a day. Calls for “humanitarian pauses” have been met with an intensification of military operations and the continuation of attacks against civilian targets, including UN installations, which prefigure war crimes. Resolution 2720 has been simply ignored, despite its mandatory nature.

Regarding peace, the approach proposed by Europeans would be multidimensional. The first concern would be the creation of a sovereign State of Palestine, capable of peacefully coexisting with the State of Israel. This idea is nothing new. It was approved in 1947 by the United Nations General Assembly (Resolution 181) and reaffirmed in the 1993 Oslo Accords and at the Camp David Summit in the USA in 2000. But it never went beyond paper, with both sides accusing each other for failures.

The international community is firmly committed to this solution – two independent states. This is the only viable, albeit complex, solution that can lead to the construction of a peaceful neighbourhood. It will only happen if there is an unquestionable commitment from interested parties, as well as from countries in the region and the main members of the UN. It needs, above all, Israeli and Palestinian leaders of exceptional vision and calibre.

The current Israeli government does not accept this solution. And contrary to the Palestinian National Authority, there are Palestinian extremists who also do not accept it. This shows that the tragedy that is taking place in Gaza, and to a certain extent in the other occupied Palestinian territories, in the West Bank, can seriously contribute to a radicalization of positions.

The Israeli minister did not understand the message that awaited him in Brussels. He talked nonsense about strange, meaningless things, such as the construction of an artificial island off Gaza and a railway corridor that would connect this territory to the rest of Palestine. In my opinion, it was a way of conveying to Europeans a clear position from the Netanyahu government, for whom the EU is seen as a featherweight.

Borrell responded, at the press conference after the meeting, that Europe has “a moral responsibility”. He spoke of looking for a path to peace. I would respond that the moral responsibility that must weigh on our consciences is not only to fight for peace, but also to ensure that humanitarian laws and the laws of war are respected. And bring individuals suspected of having violated these international rules to the attention of Karim Ahmad Khan, the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC). That's what the ICC is for, to judge political leaders. It is a separate instance from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which judges conflicts between States, as is now the case of South Africa against Israel and which today issues a first Order on the accusation of genocide. Khan, who is a British citizen, was very active in the case of the accusations against Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova. He did what he was expected to do. But he has been as low as a stone in the face of the atrocities committed on October 7th and ever since. The credibility of the ICC is thus called into question.

We live in a time of great dangers and enormous challenges. Anyone who has their eyes open and sees beyond their parish knows that this is the case. Extraordinary times require extraordinary political courage. And serious justice, impartial and expeditious.

Supporting Fatou Bensouda

 The sanctions the US has decided to impose on Ms Fatou Bensouda, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), are an abuse of power. Totally unacceptable, they cannot be supported by any European country. They show, once more, that the current Administration in Washington has little respect for the United Nations and international norms.

The UN Secretary-General said he took note of the American decision. I do not understand what that means. Note of what? Of their lack of respect for the basic principles that should guide their international relations? This statement is too weak. It does no favour to the standing of the Secretary-General.

Bashir´s travels

Omar al-Bashir is an old desert snake. He is pretty strategic and astute. And he has also been a key player against the interests of the UN and its image, including in the peacekeeping area.

Once more he has managed to strike another blow against the prestige of the UN. In this case, the loser is the International Criminal Court.

But it is also the South African government. The authorities were caught in a dreadful dilemma: either to arrest Bashir and risk a serious row with Sudan and many other African governments; or let him leave South Africa, notwithstanding the court order, and risk further criticism at home.

They opted for the let-go option. I think in the end that was the only reasonable decision they could take. Politics is about deciding and the lesser evil is quite often the better decision. Now they should have the courage to explain the decision. Politics is also about telling the story in a way that makes sense and considers public opinion as a very serious issue. 

Putin's writings

President Putin’s opinion text in the New York Times is worth the reading. First, it is well written. Second, it says a few things that make sense, including the reference to the “exceptionalism” the US claim. Third, it keeps the door open for dialogue.

But it is also an extraordinary piece of cynicism. Many of the accusations he implies against the US can also be made towards Russia, including an extreme form of Russian nationalism that is not far from the American exceptionalism.

The wise thing to do is to take the good points he makes and engage the Russians on them. That’s why the meeting that is taking place in Geneva between Secretary Kerry and Minister Lavrov is of great importance. It has, however, to produce concrete results. Time is of the essence. Agreements and action plans, and above all a UN Security Council Resolution on the destruction of Syria’s chemical arsenal, need to be out and running soonest.

Furthermore, besides addressing the chemical weapons issue it is also critical to bring to justice the perpetrators of the 21 August massacres. A Resolution on this matter is also necessary.

With all this in mind, Syria’s case remains the priority number one in the global lists of issues. The daily death toll and the incredible number of refugees and internally displaced people are a reminder of that. A painful reminder, a dramatic reality for millions of people. 

EU, Syria, ICC and imagination

International law and moral principles are against collective punishment. One cannot punish the people for the crimes perpetrated by some of their leaders. Even in matters of war crimes and related offenses, the responsibility cannot be attributed to a group of leaders. It has to be linked to the individual responsibilities of each one of them, taking into account that there are different degrees of responsibility that call for different types of sentences. That’s why I think it is important to underline the following paragraph in Baroness Ashton’s statement of yesterday on the situation in Syria:

“The EU recalls the individual responsibility of the perpetrators of attacks of this type, who must be held accountable, and the role of the ICC in investigating and judging such acts.”

I wrote something similar in my weekly column of Visao, two or three days ago. But I went further. The UN Security Council has the duty to refer the chemical attacks to the International Criminal Court for investigation. It will be the Court that will decide on who should be in the list of suspects and then proceed against each one of them.

This is the way forward. 

It can, of course, be combined with a political process. And it should.

They are both missing. The ICC and the political process.

Some of us continue to prefer action to justice and imagination. Yes, imagination, because a political process in the case of Syria is above all an exercise extremely demanding in terms of creativity.