Murders, rapes, rocket attacks on hospitals or theaters. Russia is accused of war crimes in Ukraine. But when does war become a war crime and how could the soldiers and Putin be held accountable?
Thousands of civilians have already fallen victim to Russia’s war against Ukraine. Whether in the barbaric attacks in Bucha or rocket attacks on hospitals, theaters and other civilian buildings. the United Nations have “officially” counted at least 1932 killed and 2589 injured civilians up to last week. It is estimated that the actual number is much higher.
With these acts, did the Russian soldiers cross the threshold from war to war crimes? Yes, says military expert Thomas Wiegold in an ntv interview. “War always means injury and death, and also means that civilians suffer and die as a result. But there are limits set by international humanitarian law. If civilians die when a military installation is shelled and the enemy also knows that they died come to life, then he can still do it, as bitter as that sounds.”
The targeted killing of civilians, on the other hand, is contrary to international law. “And after everything we saw in Bucha, Russia deliberately crossed that line.”
Agreements from 1949 are intended to protect civilians
Wiegold explains that the central principle of international humanitarian law is the so-called principle of distinction: in war, armies must distinguish between civilians and combatants. If a soldier kills an enemy soldier, that’s legitimate. The situation is different when civilians are injured.
The Geneva Conventions from 1949 form the basis for the protection of the civilian population. Almost every country in the world has signed this treaty, including Russia. States have agreed to protect civilians in a war as much as possible, not to deliberately kill, injure or abuse them.
In principle, however, civilian victims are not excluded by the Geneva Conventions. Attacks on military installations can also result in civilian casualties without being convicted as a war crime. This takes “military effectiveness into account,” international law expert Christian Marxsen from the Max Planck Institute explained to the editorial network Germany. What is “commonly referred to as collateral damage”.
The mass murder of peaceful civilians on the streets of Bucha is certainly not such “collateral damage”. The legally compliant processing of the deeds is nevertheless complicated and lengthy. Therefore, even in the most obvious cases, extensive evidence is secured. For example, in a possible trial it must be proven that the civilians did not point a gun at the Russian attackers and thus became a legitimate target, says Marxsen.
War crimes as a military tactic?
An unlikely scenario given the number of Russian attacks. Instead – it seems – the civilian population is being targeted in order to wear down the people of Ukraine. Janine Uhlmannsiek from the human rights organization Amnesty International speaks of a war tactic in an ntv interview. “It is clear that the history of Russian military interventions is marked by disregard for the rights of the civilian population and war crimes. We have seen in Syria, but also in our own country, in Chechnya, how the Russian military acts ruthlessly against the civilian population and commits the worst war crimes commits.”
Given what happened in Bucha and elsewhere, it seems clear that Russian soldiers are committing war crimes. The problem is that the international authorities cannot stop and punish Russia.
The highest UN court, the International Court of Justice in The Hague, has long since ordered that Russia must end military violence. But that’s nothing more than a declaration of intent. After all, there is no world police force.
The International Criminal Court – also based in The Hague – has already initiated investigations. However, the establishment of a war crimes tribunal – as happened after the atrocities in the Yugoslav war or the genocide in Rwanda in the 1990s – is unlikely because Russia, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, can veto it.
“Putin would not appear”
And that Putin himself, as commander-in-chief of the Russian armed forces, would one day end up on trial in The Hague is just as unthinkable. “Mr. Putin probably wouldn’t show up at all. And no way would be found to get him there against his will. But even if there were a conviction, Russia certainly wouldn’t recognize the sentence and we wouldn’t see the sentence carried out.” , explains international law professor Pierre Thielbörger from the Ruhr University Bochum in an ntv interview.
The International Criminal Court can investigate, but is ultimately a toothless tiger. Because the court is dependent on the cooperation of the states. And Russia is not a member of the court at all, so it would not transfer citizens to The Hague.
Nobody can execute an arrest warrant against Putin, says international law expert Elisabeth Hoffberger-Pippan from the Science and Politics Foundation in an ntv interview. In other words, one would have to wait and hope that at some point Putin would no longer be President of Russia and would be extradited by a “new government that was a little more friendly to international law.”
“Let the truth come out”
Apparently, however, one is willing to wait a long time if necessary. In any case, immediately after the atrocities in Bucha, Federal Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock announced that she would have staying power in the prosecution of the war crimes. “These war crimes must not go unpunished. The International Criminal Court is already investigating. Now it’s a matter of securing evidence on the ground and hearing witnesses so that the truth, the whole truth, comes to light.” The Federal Government has made one million euros available to the International Criminal Court and the investigative commission of the UN Human Rights Council.
It is also not only investigating The Hague in the case of Russian war crimes. Because in the case of violations of international law, the so-called principle of universal law applies. This means that all countries in the world can individually investigate serious crimes and impose penalties. Investigations have therefore already been started in Germany. The Attorney General has instructed the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) to evaluate evidence of war crimes. The BKA is supported by the BND, which in turn receives tips from the Ukrainian secret service. Ukraine itself has been collecting evidence of war crimes committed by Russian soldiers since the beginning of the war.
Biden’s genocide allegation
US President Joe Biden has long since gone a step further when looking at the Russian atrocities in Ukraine. He accuses Russia of genocide. But the term is controversial and Biden has also been criticized for the statement. According to Article 2 of the UN Convention, genocide is a crime against humanity “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group”.
Experts see signs of this, but point out that determining a genocide is legally complicated. Yes, Russia denies the Ukrainian nation’s right to exist, “but do you also deny the Ukrainians’ right to exist as a people, or just their right to see themselves as Ukrainians?” asks political scientist David Simon of Yale University. According to the genocide expert, the latter would not be covered by the United Nations Convention on International Law.
This legal sophistry suggests that coming to terms with the war crimes in Ukraine will take a long time.
“Learned again” is a podcast for the curious: Will Deutsche Bank get its money back from Donald Trump? Why do some commercial pilots pay money for their job? Why are pirates moving from East to West Africa? Listen in and get a little smarter three times a week.
All episodes can be found in the ntv app, at AudioNow, Apple Podcasts and Spotify. “Learned something again” is also included Amazon Music and Google Podcasts accessible. For all other podcast apps, you can use the RSS feed.