As the number of civilian casualties in Ukraine continues to increase and the state of the terrible scene is reported, the keywords "war crimes" and "genocide" that have become popular in the news recently.
In the first place, I would like to sort out what kind of position it is in international law.
With that in mind, I asked an expert in international law in detail.
The answer was Professor Hiroyuki Banzai of Waseda University's Faculty of Law, who has been studying international law for many years.
(Interviewer, International Department, Youhei Suzuki)
What is a "war crime"?
So-called "war crimes" are when national leaders are involved in illegal war decisions, and when soldiers fighting in the field cause damage in a way that violates the rules of international law. "Personal criminal liability" is questioned.
The so-called genocide "crimes against humanity", "war crimes" in the narrow sense, and "crimes of aggression".
It can be classified into 4 types.
"Genocide" is the killing of a person for the purpose of destroying all or part of a group, typically the Nazi massacre of Jews.
Since there was a part that targeted Jews, it is a typical example of "genocide crime".
"Crimes against humanity" is a widespread and systematic crime that kills people or causes them to be displaced, making "intentional crime" very important.
A "war crime" is, so to speak, a violation of the "rules of war".
These include the use of weapons that should not be used, and acts that violate the rules that stipulate how to deal with people who are away from combat, such as prisoners of war, victims, and civilians.
"Crime of aggression" is intended to punish a person who clearly violates the Charter of the United Nations and is involved in illegal war decisions.
What kind of "war crimes" is Russia committing?
The so-called "war crimes" currently practiced in Ukraine are broadly and systematically called "war crimes" in the sense that they are sacrificing civilians. It seems that it corresponds to "crimes against humanity" such as killing.
For example, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken also said that "members of the Russian army are committing war crimes," but the basis for this was an attack on private facilities, especially a maternity woman in Mariupol. It was an attack on a place like a departmental ward.
With regard to "genocide", the so-called "genocide", it is questioned whether Ukrainian people are committed with the intention of destroying all or part of a particular ethnic group.
On a press basis, I haven't heard that much yet.
I understand that President Zelensky uses such expressions in a political context, but if you think of it as a concept under international law, it may not be a "genocide crime" yet. It seems that it will be revealed in the process of progress.
Can you guilty about "crime of aggression"?
Whether or not there was a legal "crime of aggression" against President Putin or against other high-ranking Russian officials will become clear as evidence is gathered and investigations progress. I think it's not.
What must be distinguished here is that there was certainly aggression as a national action.
However, who committed the crime as an individual and to what extent the invasion was committed is another matter.
If there is an act of aggression as a nation, it is presumed that among the decision-makers of basic policies, especially the highest decision-maker, made a decision that falls under the category of "crime of aggression". , The phrase "clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations" is included in the definition of crime, which raises the bar for accreditation.
It's a pretty strong estimate, but I don't think I can make a quick decision here.
Especially for "crime of aggression", the procedural hurdles for exercising jurisdiction over Russia, which is a non-parties to the Rome Statute, are high.
So can we "judgment" "war crimes"?
Although Ukraine is not a party to the Rome Statute, it accepts the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court for crimes committed within the territory of Ukraine, so the International Criminal Court can investigate.
The International Criminal Court's Prosecution Service has already begun an investigation into the Ukrainian territory in collaboration with the Ukrainian prosecution authorities, and I suspect that the investigation will proceed, especially for the tragic cases in the suburbs of Kieu. increase.
On the other hand, Russia is a non-parties that is not included in the rules of the International Criminal Court, and it has no jurisdiction, and I think the question of how effectively the International Criminal Court can respond can be a problem.
The International Criminal Court cannot be arrested or handed over without the cooperation of the state.
Then President Putin and other high-ranking Russian government officials are in Russia, and it is hard to predict that Russia's cooperation will be obtained once the military members return to Russia.
Also, as long as President Putin, senior government officials, and military members remain in power, Russia will be willing to cooperate with the activities of the International Criminal Court. I can't imagine that, so I think it's going to be an obstacle.
How is Russia arguing?
Putin is not without thinking about international law.
We are trying to justify the unilateral annexation of Crimea, this time in the eastern region, and even if we take each reason for the start of the war.
For example, there has been a long-standing idea of "protecting foreign nationals."
In order to protect the foreign nationals, there is no choice but to violate the territorial sovereignty of other countries, which is a difficult problem with conflicting interpretations.
Again, it is used to justify Russia's military invasion.
Although not a citizen, there are Russian-speaking inhabitants in the pro-Russian region of Ukraine, saying, "We are under attack because the inhabitants of the same ethnic group who really want to be with Russia are being attacked. You have the right to protect. "
He also said, "Because we hold a referendum and become independent under the self-determination of the people, and the other party wants to become Russian territory, we can legally conclude a so-called annexation treaty of territories." You merged the Crimean Peninsula in 2014.
We are moving in order with the idea of doing that for the eastern region this time as well.
It's a very formalistic theory, but for the time being, it only shows the attitude of following the rules of international law.
In addition, the term "special military operation" is a theory that it is not just an act of aggression, such as taking military action because it is necessary to protect the legal interests of the Russian side and the interests of the people in the eastern part of the pro-Russian region. Is attached.
Furthermore, when the Ukrainian side claims that Russia is killing them, they say "I haven't done that" or "I'm lying".
I don't say "what's wrong" because I know it's something I shouldn't do.
In that sense, it can be said that the Russian side does not ignore international law for the time being.
However, these are almost abuses of international law theory.
Is international law useful?
I don't say that anything can be solved by international law, but if you don't know international law, it's hard to say, "Why are you aware of that?" Or "Why are you making such excuses?" I overlook the fact that I think I can't forgive it, so I would like various people to know about international law.
After all, when the people know the truth, I think that democratic power will work only when they know what rules it violates.
It is not that "international law is useless because it cannot be punished in practice", but it is an important factor in the decision-making of national leaders, etc., and in order for the world to be peaceful, it is still international law. I want you to understand that knowledge is essential.
(Interview was conducted on April 4th)