On March 9, in Mariupol, southern Ukraine.
Russian forces bombed a maternity hospital.
An Associated Press photographer's camera caught paramedics rushing to move a full-term pregnant woman on a stretcher.
The baby was eventually born dead, and the mother died 30 minutes later.
A father is looking down at a baby he is holding in his arms with a blood spattered face.
An expression of anger, relief, or sadness stood in his eyes.
The photo description provided by the Associated Press does not state the baby's life or death.
She seems alive.
she wants to be alive
Photos and videos showing the atrocities of the Russian military are coming out endlessly.
They intentionally bomb a building that is clearly visible from the sky as a shelter for children.
Fire missiles at residential apartments.
It is an act of attack on civilians with clear intentions that is hard to see as a mistake.
As the Russian army struggled against the regular Ukrainian army, it greatly increased its attacks on civilians.
It is a threat to the Ukrainian government led by President Zelensky, 'If you do not surrender quickly, we will kill more of your people.'
There is also talk of the use of nuclear weapons or chemical and biological weapons in the near future.
Modern Thinking: No matter how much war...
In war, people die.
Killing a human during battle is not punishable for murder.
But is it okay to kill and harm anyone?
In pre-modern warfare, this question was not established regardless of East and West.
The looting was used as a means of supplying soldiers and boosting morale.
There was a time when killing, rape, bodily harm, and the atrocities that displayed the results of these actions to instill fear in others and break their will to fight were also common as a natural procedure following war.
However, as the 19th century passed, among western countries, the perception that there was a line that had to be defended no matter how much war grew.
Even if it becomes a situation where conflicts between countries must be resolved by force, people who do not participate in the battle should not be killed recklessly.
Crossing this line led to the creation of the norm of war crimes.
Putin's war on the invasion of Ukraine has crossed the acceptable line for war.
There are many voices around the world condemning Putin as a 'war criminal'.
Is Putin a war criminal? change in the US position
The US government was cautious at first.
President Biden did not initially call Putin a war criminal, and the US government only stated that an investigation was ongoing.
On the 16th (local time), during the video address of Ukrainian President Zelensky's video address to the US Congress, a change occurred.
U.S. President Biden called Putin a war criminal after being asked by reporters.
This was the first time Biden had explicitly called Putin a 'war criminal', but the remarks were a bit ahead, at least at the time.
Perhaps due to insufficient legal review and evidence gathering, White House and State Department spokespersons answered reporters' follow-up questions with clues as shown in the figure below.
It is interesting to note that the two spokespersons used the same expression 'from the heart'.
This seems to be a coordinated explanation.
On the 23rd, the US government issued a more advanced position in a statement from Secretary of State Tony Blincoln.
Secretary of State Blincoln announced that he had determined, based on information the US government had so far, that Putin's troops were committing war crimes in Ukraine.
However, contrary to President Biden's remarks to reporters, he did not identify the individual responsible for the war crimes as Putin, but referred to them as 'members of Russia's forces'.
The statement stated that "a court of law with jurisdiction" was responsible for the conviction, without reference to the international legal action the U.S. government would take directly.
The expression seems to have in mind the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, Netherlands, but may not be limited thereto.
At the same time, he declared the will of the US government to continue to collect information and share the obtained information with allies, partners, and international organizations to hold those involved in accountability to the end.
If so, how have war crimes been defined and punished in the international community?
Can Putin be a new punishment for war criminals?
[Modern History of War Criminals] There are rules in war - don't kill anyone
In the middle of the 19th century, in Europe, an international treaty was concluded with the idea that human beings who did not participate in battle should not be killed indiscriminately.
This is the birth of the Geneva Convention.
The agreement was first signed with the stipulation that even in the midst of war, the prisoners of war or wounded soldiers who surrendered and surrendered should not be harmed, and the protection of civilians was reflected later.
The first Convention on Military Wounds on Land Battlefields was signed in 1864.
Afterwards, the 2nd (Convention on the Wounded Soldiers at Sea, 1906), the 3rd (Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 1929), followed by the 4th Convention (1949).
The 4th Convention is the most important update centered on the protection of civilians in wartime.
[Modern History of War Criminals] Promoting Punishment of the German Emperor Who Caused World War I
Despite the discussions that took place during the signing of the Geneva Conventions, World War I (1914-1918) broke out, and many people who did not participate in the battle were killed.
During the post-war process of World War I, the victorious countries promoted the criminal punishment of Emperor Wilhelm II of the German Empire.
It was to hold accountable for the inhumane acts that occurred after the 1st and 2nd Geneva Conventions were already signed.
However, Wilhelm II fled to the Netherlands at the end of the war, and no criminal punishment was imposed on him because the Dutch government refused to extradite him.
[Modern History of War Criminals] Nuremberg War Criminal Trial: Nazi Germany Condemned
Punishment for war criminals in World War II was carried out in a way that the victorious countries set up separate international courts and tried them.
It is symbolic that a court to condemn Nazi war criminals was opened in Nuremberg, the city where the famous 1933 Nazi National Convention was held.
The Nuremberg International Military Tribunal has conducted trials against 24 defendants since October 1945.
Hitler was one of the top leaders in the war.
Goebbels, Himmler and others committed suicide before arrest and were therefore not tried.
In more than four hundred trials, the tribunal dealt with four crimes:
Ⅰ: Conspiracy to commit crimes against peace
Ⅱ: Crimes of planning and executing a war of aggression
Ⅲ: Violation of the War Law
Ⅳ: Crimes against humanity
Twelve men including Hermann Göring, commander-in-chief of the German Air Force and Marshal of the Reich, were sentenced to death (hanging).
Göring said he wanted an honorable death as a soldier, even though he was a trooper, and requested that he be shot.
The victorious nations did not allow it.
Göring committed suicide by biting a poison capsule smuggled into the cell.
The rest of the war criminals were executed by hanging as per the verdict.
[Modern History of War Criminals] Far East Military Trial: Punishment of War Crimes in the Japanese Empire
The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE, abbreviated as IMTFE), which adjudicated war crimes in the Japanese Empire, was established in Tokyo in January 1946 according to the declaration and order of US Marshal MacArthur.
The trial was held in the building of the Military Academy, a training center for major Japanese military personnel.
Judges were appointed from 11 countries, including the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, China, India and the Philippines.
The emperor did not prosecute because of the consideration of the Japanese people and the problem of proving the charges, but only downgraded him from 'god to human' instead.
Seven people, including Hideki Tojo, were sentenced to death, 16 to life imprisonment, and two to imprisonment.
The death penalty was carried out by hanging while wearing a prison uniform rather than a military uniform.
Japanese war criminals are often referred to as Class A, Class B, etc., but in the original English text, they are classified as Class A, Class B, and Class C.
It is reasonable to view it as a type of crime, rather than a worst-case-less evil problem.
* Type A war criminals: crimes against peace.
Crimes of planning and leading
a war * Type B war crimes: conventional war crimes.
Crimes of violating the laws of war and customary laws of war and committing the massacre of civilians.
* Type C war criminals: crimes against humanity.
A crime committed inhumanely, including the killing or torture of civilians and prisoners of war.
There was no major problem in punishing Type B and C war criminals in the Far East Military Tribunal, but controversy ensued regarding Type A war criminals.
At that time, there were more than 100 lawyers, three-quarters Japanese and one-quarter Americans.
The defense team questioned whether individuals could be punished for planning and leading a national war of aggression.
The defense team also argued that planning and leading a war of aggression (type A war criminals) was not an act prohibited under international law at the time, and therefore cannot be punished retroactively.
He also argued that it would be unfair to punish only individuals of the defeated country without punishing the inhumane acts committed by the soldiers of the victorious country.
It was not a trial by a third party that guarantees fairness, but rather a unilateral condemnation of the loser by the winner.
It sounds like a lot of anger for Koreans who have directly experienced the damage of Japanese imperialism, but the logic they developed raises concerns for experts who consider the philosophy and logic of law.
The international community needed to supplement the problems and establish a new war crimes handling system.
His concerns were later embodied in the establishment of the International Criminal Court.
[Modern History of War Criminals] Trial of War Criminals by a Third Party- Rwanda Ethnic Cleanup
In Rwanda, Africa, there has been a civil war between the Hutu and the Tutsi since 1990.
In the process, about 800,000 people were slaughtered and thousands of women were raped by Hutu hardliners, which was a horrific war crime.
The disaster at that time was reported in color video all over the world, giving a great shock to the people of the world as a human tragedy.
Ultimately, the civil war was settled in the early 2000s by Paul Kagame, a Tutsi native.
In the 2003 presidential election, Kagame was elected president with a staggering 95% of the vote, and banned retaliation against the Hutu.
The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), established in Tanzania in 1994 by a UN Security Council resolution, has taken the international condemnation of war crimes committed in Rwanda's civil war.
It is different from the aforementioned Nuremberg War Criminals Trial and the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, where the victorious countries were punished.
This tribunal served as an international tribunal for anti-humanitarian cases in Africa, but was dissolved after completing its duties at the end of 2016 according to a UN Security Council decision.
[Modern History of War Criminals] How to punish the head of state for war criminals - Case of Yugoslav Milosevic
In Europe during the post-Cold War era, problems arose as nationalism emerged from the vacuum of the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Yugoslavia was a federal state composed of Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, and Macedonia.
Milosevic, who became president of the Republic of Serbia in 1989, advocated a strong anti-Serbian nationalism to eliminate or subdue other peoples.
Milosevic was charged with conspiring Serb soldiers and militia to commit all kinds of brutal war crimes against other peoples, including massacres and rapes, in the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo in Yugoslavia since 1990.
War crimes in the Yugoslav Civil War became a problem fairly early on, and according to a UN Security Council resolution in 1993, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was established in The Hague, Netherlands, where the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is located. ) was installed.
Milosevic conducted ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, following Bosnia.
Kosovo is the birthplace of the former Kingdom of Serbia, but it is also home to a large Muslim population of Albanian descent.
After Milosevic deprived Kosovo of autonomy, Albanians in Kosovo began an armed struggle claiming independence in 1995.
Milosevic overcame the Republic of Serbia and became president of the New Yugoslavia in 1997, and sent federal troops to Kosovo to oppress Albanians.
In the end, NATO intervened by bombing the Republic of Serbia in 1999, and in May of that year, the United Nations sued the Yugoslav President Milosevic as a war criminal.
It is said that 200,000 people died in the Yugoslav civil war and 3 million became refugees.
Milosevic sought re-election in the 2000 Yugoslav presidential election, but public opinion was bad.
His people, the Serbs, had nothing left after a long war, and it was difficult to make a living due to NATO bombing and international isolation.
Milosevic was caught trying to manipulate the voting results, and eventually came down from power in the bulldozer revolution of the Serbian citizens.
After he was overthrown, he was arrested for abuse of power and illicit wealth.
The new regime in Yugoslavia initially pushed for domestic punishment of Milosevic, but under domestic and international pressure, he was eventually turned over to the war crimes tribunal of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, Netherlands.
Milosevic had been tried since 2002 on more than 60 war crimes charges, but was found dead in a prison in The Hague in March 2006, before his conviction was confirmed.
His death was determined as a natural cause of high blood pressure and heart disease.
Victims of Milosevic's war crimes and human rights activists were outraged at his natural death before the conviction was finalized.
[Modern History of War Criminals] Permanent International War Criminal Court: Rome Statute and ICC
As in the above cases, the international community established and operated war crimes tribunals for each case, and closed the tribunal when its mission was fulfilled.
In the 2000s, there is a discussion about creating a permanent tribunal to compensate for the theoretical weaknesses revealed in the war crimes trials and to enhance the preventive effect against future war crimes.
In 1998, the United Nations Plenipotentiary Conference (aka Rome Conference) was held, and as a result, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted.
As an international treaty, the Rome Statute came into force on July 1, 2002 after ratification by the Parties, and the International Criminal Court (ICC) started operating in The Hague, Netherlands.
Korea also ratified it at the plenary session of the National Assembly in 2002.
The full text can be found at the National Legal Information Center.
Article 5 of the Rome Statute stipulates which crimes the International Criminal Court punishes and the crimes within the jurisdiction of the court.
Article 5. Crimes within
the jurisdiction of the Court 1. The jurisdiction of the Court is limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole.
go.
Genocide
B.
Crimes against humanity c
.
War crimes
d.
Crime of aggression
A more detailed explanation of each crime is attached to the text of the treaty, and the 'Crime of Genocide' and 'Crime against humanity' can be roughly guessed just by looking at their names. Let's take a closer look.
[Definition of International Law] What constitutes a 'war crime'
Article 8 of the Rome Statute stipulates 'war crimes'.
Eight items of the “A” objection stipulated acts such as intentionally killing, torture, and taking hostages of persons protected by the 4th Geneva Conventions of 1949 (such as soldiers and wounded soldiers who surrender their weapons and surrender).
Section 'B' stipulates war crimes in detail over 26 items, covering most war crimes against civilians and the use of prohibited weapons.
There are so many implications about the recent situation that it is possible to match an article on the situation in Ukraine for each item.
To name just a few,
(1) intentional attack on the civilian population itself or on civilian individuals not directly participating in hostilities
(2) intentional attack on civilian objects, i.e. non-military objects
(5) unprotected and military forces by any means Attack or bombardment of non-target villages, villages, settlements, or buildings”
The use of inhumane weapons with excessive lethal force is also defined as a war crime.
(17) the use of poison or toxic weapons
(18) the use of asphyxiating gases, toxic gases or other gases and any liquid, substance or device similar thereto
;
(20)
the use of bullets that extend or deploy easily within the human body, such as bullets with
and the use of combat methods.
[Applied] If so, can Putin's guilt be proven?
US Secretary of State Blincoln's statement, which defined the actions of the Russian military as a war crime, did not identify Putin as a war criminal.
Those of you who have read the provisions of international treaties that regulate war crimes, do you think Putin can be punished as a war criminal?
The International Criminal Court is also a court and strictly applies the general principles of criminal law.
If you read the full text of the Rome Statute, the mechanisms to guarantee the defendant's right of defense are thoroughly stipulated as in the general criminal law.
The principle of presumption of innocence also applies.
This means that the party prosecuting the war criminal must present evidence as thoroughly as possible.
In this context, there is no trial in absentia.
There is no trial without taking the accused to court in The Hague, Netherlands.
The treaty stipulates that “the accused must appear during the trial” in the “trial in the presence of the accused” in Part 6 of the Trial/Article 63.
This means that there will be no case for the International Court of Justice to proceed with a trial and punish Putin as a war criminal without a new recruit.
Even if Putin's appearance at the Hague War Crimes Tribunal in the Netherlands actually happened, he would say, 'I didn't give orders' or 'I don't know because it happened at the battlefield'.
It will be postponed as the responsibility of the subordinates.
Putin cannot be punished for such a crime unless it is possible to present evidence or testimony in court that Putin directly ordered the war crimes committed by the Russian military in Ukraine.
This is the same principle as the Korean Supreme Court in 1997 did not specify Chun Doo-hwan as the order to fire Gwangju in May 1980, but found him guilty of comprehensive 'murder for the purpose of rebellion'.
Can't we put a more comprehensive charge on Putin?
So, is there no room for punishing Putin on more comprehensive war crimes charges?
The Rome Statute specified 'Crime of Aggression' along with 'War Crimes' as crimes under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
In terms of content, it can be said that Putin falls under this clause.
'Crime of aggression' is a provision punishing those who plan, prepare, and lead a war that violates the UN Charter.
It also falls under the “crimes against peace / crimes of planning and executing a war of aggression,” which were previously condemned by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal and the Tokyo Far East Military Tribunal.
It was previously explained that this charge was a subject of legal controversy even at the end of World War II, but the controversy was not completely ended even when the Treaty of Rome came into force in 2002.
Therefore, it was in 2010 that 'crime of aggression' was officially added as a crime under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, and it was difficult to enter into force at the end of 2017, when more than 30 countries ratified this article.
Even then, a debate arose over whether this provision applies only to the countries that have ratified it or whether it applies to all parties to the International Criminal Court (ICC).
To punish state leaders like Putin with this provision
1. An action must be
instituted by a
State Party to the ICC ;
However, except for cases brought by the Security Council, non-parties to the International Criminal Court are not punished for 'crimes of aggression'.
Since Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council with veto power, the Russian ambassador to the UN sent by Putin cannot ignore the Security Council's proposal to file a complaint against Putin without rejecting it.
So, is Russia a party to the International Criminal Court?
Nor is it
Although Russia signed the Rome Statute, the treaty that serves as the basis for the International Criminal Court, Russia delayed ratification and withdrew from the International Criminal Court system in 2016.
It seems that this was a measure to avoid cases such as the invasion of Georgia and the annexation of Crimea from being dealt with in international courts.
(The United States and China are not parties to the International Criminal Court, either. The Republic of Korea and Japan are parties.)
[Then how?] As long as Putin's regime is maintained, it's difficult, but...
Philip Sands, a professor of international law at University College London, UK, told the BBC that the application of international law is not only governed by treaties, but also has a pool of politics and diplomacy.
According to the BBC, there are experts who argue that there is a need to establish a separate special court to deal with the Ukraine war crimes due to the limitations of the International Criminal Court system.
Even so, in order to punish Putin for ordering this war, in reality, Putin must first be removed from power.
As long as he sits as Russia's head of state, it is practically difficult to condemn.
In this regard, the case of former Yugoslav President Milosevic, described above, gives a hint.
He could be the subject of condemnation only when the Serbian people, who were inflamed by his corruption and dictatorship, came to power when the real benefits of war crimes disappeared due to the international community's armed intervention and the country became more difficult to live in.
Although the International Criminal Court issues arrest warrants for war criminals, it does not have the physical power to arrest and extradite the accused.
In fact, it is the governments of the parties to the International Criminal Court that have ratified the Rome Statute that have the coercive force to arrest and deport war crimes.
Milosevic was arrested by the local police and taken to the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands.
Russians need to increase pressure to drive Putin out on their own
Putin must first be removed from power.
Even if the international community does not intervene by force as in the Yugoslav war, it must nurture dissatisfaction and rift within the Russian system with strong sanctions and various pressures.
So the Russians themselves asked, "Why do we have to suffer like this because of Putin? Why should Russia be treated like this in the international community?"
You have to ask questions and get them to act.
As the war prolongs and the Russian army suffers more damage, there are reports that the Russian leadership is showing signs of some cracks.
TASS News reported on the 23rd (local time) that Chuweis, who served as the special representative for international organizations under President Putin, left the country after resigning.
He also served as deputy prime minister for the economy during Putin's predecessor, Yeltsin.
Arkady Dvorkovich, president of the State Aid Technology Fund, also resigned after condemning the invasion of Ukraine.
Dvorkovic is a former deputy prime minister and president of the International Chess Federation.
The Guardian, The Times, and others reported the allegation of a Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) whistleblower that the risk of Putin's ouster in a coup d'état grows every week.
A letter written by the FSB whistleblower to exiled human rights activist Vladimir Osekin said there was growing dissatisfaction among Putin's elite and defenders of the regime, which resulted in "weekly and monthly uprisings by security forces. The possibilities are increasing.”
It is not known how realistic this movement is.
But in the outside world, we have no choice but to do as much as we can to make the anti-Putin movement bigger in Russia.
Putin quoted this Russian proverb in an interview with CBS in the United States in 2017, telling the story of how he overcame several assassination attempts.
As a human being, I hope that his quotation will be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
[Composition: Senior Correspondent Lee Hyun-sik (D Contents Producer) / Content Design: Jisoo Ok]