LVIV, Ukraine: Each day searing stories pour out of Ukraine: A maternity hospital bombed in Mariupol. A mother and her children killed as they fled Irpin in a humanitarian corridor. Burning apartment blocks. Mass graves. A child dead of dehydration in a city under siege, denied humanitarian aid.
Such images have contributed to a growing global consensus that Russia should be held accountable for war crimes in Ukraine.
“The world’s strongmen are watching like crocodiles … We have to show tyrants around the world that rule of law is stronger than rule of gun,” said David Crane, a veteran of numerous international war crime investigations.
Even as the conflict rages, a vast apparatus is being built to gather and preserve evidence of potential violations of international laws of war that were written after World War II. Less than a month after Vladimir Putin’s order to drop the first bombs on his neighbor, the United States declared that Russian forces were committing war crimes in Ukraine. But it remains far from clear who will be held accountable and how.
Here’s a look at what war crimes are and what options exist for bringing those responsible to justice.
WHAT ARE WAR CRIMES?
A war crime is a violation of the laws of war. While the architecture of international criminal law has been built over decades, the concept is straightforward.
“If there’s no military necessary reason to target something, it’s a war crime. If you’re just shooting like `Mad Max Thunderdome’ then it’s a war crime,” said Crane.
The core principles of international humanitarian law are enshrined in the Geneva Conventions, the bulk of which came into force after World War II, and the Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court in 1998.
They provide protections for civilians in times of war, as well as for prisoners of war and the wounded. Possible war crimes that have been reported in Ukraine: widespread destruction of people’s homes, firing on civilians as they evacuate through safe corridors, targeting hospitals, using indiscriminate weapons like cluster bombs in civilian areas, attacks on nuclear power plants, intentionally blocking access to humanitarian aid or basic needs like food and water.
But intention matters. Destroying a hospital alone is not evidence of a war crime. Prosecutors would have to show that the attack was intentional or at least reckless.
Crimes against humanity, which have been codified in the statutes of a number of international criminal tribunals, occur when a state launches a widespread or systematic attack against civilians involving murder, deportation, torture, disappearances or other inhumane acts.
The mass mobilization of Ukrainian citizens to fight off Russian invaders may complicate the case against Putin. Russia could try to use the blurred distinction between civilian and combatant as a justification for attacks on civilian areas.
Some examples of recent convictions:
— In 2012, the International Criminal Court convicted warlord Thomas Lubanga Dyilo of drafting and enlisting children under 15 years old to fight in an ethnic conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo. He is serving a 14-year sentence.
— Radovan Karadžić, president of the Republika Srpska, a self-proclaimed Serb republic within Bosnia, was convicted of crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide — most notoriously, the murders of more than 7,000 people in Srebrenica in 1995. He is serving a life sentence imposed by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.
— Jean-Paul Akayesu, a mayor convicted of genocide, crimes against humanity — including rape — and incitement to commit genocide in the 1994 Rwandan ethnic bloodbath. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda sentenced him to life in prison.
WHAT IS THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT?
The International Criminal Court, located in the Hague, can prosecute individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and the crime of aggression.
The court holds sway over its 123 member countries. Ukraine is not among them but has granted the ICC jurisdiction. On Feb. 28, the ICC’s chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, announced that he would investigate suspected atrocities in Ukraine after an unprecedented 39 member states asked him to do so. Since then, more states have signed on to that request.
“There is a reasonable basis to believe that both alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity have been committed in Ukraine,” Khan said at the time.
There are important limitations to what the ICC can do. It doesn’t have the power to investigate Russia for what judges at the Nuremberg tribunal after World War II called the “supreme international crime,” the crime of aggression — that is, the decision to wage a ruthless, unprovoked war against another country, which international lawyers say would be the easiest way to hold Putin accountable.
That’s because Russia, like the United States, isn’t a party to the ICC.
When the ICC statute was amended to include the crime of aggression, the United States, Russia and China pushed for – and got — a carveout to protect citizens of countries that have not signed on to the court from being prosecuted on that charge. The UN Security Council can override that by voting to refer a matter to the ICC, but Russia has a seat on the Security Council and could easily torpedo any such initiative.
Another limitation of the ICC is that the court cannot try people in absentia.
“There would be no trial at the ICC of Putin until he is physically present in the courtroom,” said David Scheffer, who was the first ever US Ambassador at Large for War Crimes Issues and led the US delegation at talks establishing the International Criminal Court.
But the ICC could indict Putin even if he stays put in Moscow and issue an international warrant for his arrest, Scheffer said. That would seriously curtail Putin’s overseas travel and damage his standing both at home and abroad.
HAVE ANY COURTS ALREADY MOVED AGAINST RUSSIA FOR ITS ACTIONS IN UKRAINE?
Yes. On March 1, the European Court of Human Rights, in Strasbourg, told Russia to stop attacking civilians and bombing people’s homes, hospitals and schools and start ensuring civilians safe evacuation routes and access to humanitarian aid. Then, on Mar. 16, the UN’s highest court, the International Court of Justice, ordered Russia to suspend military operations in Ukraine. Both courts consider violations by states, rather than individuals.
Russia simply ignored them.
“There is no international police or international military force that can support any international court judgment,” said Ivan Lishchyna, an adviser to Ukraine’s Ministry of Justice who helped Ukraine make its case at the European Court of Human Rights. “It’s not like you receive a judgment and everything gets peaceful and quiet and everyone is punished for violating international law. It’s much more complicated.”
Many Ukrainians, including Lishchyna, would like to see Russia pay for its transgressions and cover the massive cost of repairing damage wreaked by its bombs. “If compensation were paid, I would consider that I did something good in my life,” Lishchyna said.
The ECHR could order Russia to pay compensation. But the only leverage the ECHR would have if Russia didn’t pay up would be to exclude it from the Council of Europe – which already happened on March 16. The ICJ could also order Russia to pay reparations, but the UN Security Council – where Russia holds a permanent seat and veto power – would have to enforce the judgment.
Scholars, prosecutors and politicians have started discussing whether Russian assets frozen under global sanctions could be used in the future to pay reparations to Ukraine.
CAN OTHER COUNTRIES PROSECUTE RUSSIAN OFFICIALS FOR WAR CRIMES, EVEN IF THEY’RE NOT DIRECTLY IMPACTED?
Yes. Poland, Germany, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, France, Slovakia, Sweden, Norway and Switzerland all opened independent investigations into Russia’s activity in Ukraine within the first month of the conflict. They can do so under the legal concept of “universal jurisdiction,” which allows countries to use domestic courts to prosecute individuals for grave violations of international law, like crimes against humanity, torture and war crimes – even if they are committed abroad by foreign perpetrators against foreign victims.
This approach has produced results in the past. So far, the only convictions of Syrian government officials for atrocities committed during the country’s long-running civil war have been handed down by German courts. Courts in other European countries also have convicted members of armed groups in Syria, including Daesh militants, for crimes committed during the war.
Within the first month of Russia’s war against Ukraine, Polish prosecutors said they had collected some 300 witness testimonies from refugees pouring over the border. In March, Poland, Lithuania and Ukraine agreed to set up a joint international investigative team on Russian war crimes in Ukraine. Efforts have been ongoing to expand the scope of that collaboration.
While the ICC typically only tries a handful of high-profile cases, prosecutions in national courts can cast a wider net and hold more people accountable. But they too have a limitation: Sitting heads of state, like Putin, and senior officials, like Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, generally have immunity from prosecution in other countries, said Ryan Goodman, professor of law at New York University and former special counsel at the Department of Defense.
“This probably knocks out of contention the independent national jurisdictions of Germany, Poland etc. in getting Putin, Lavrov and maybe others,” Goodman said. “But they’d be able to go after a lot of other senior Russian officials.”
IS UKRAINE PROSECUTING RUSSIAN WAR CRIMES CASES?
Yes. Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Iryna Venediktova, said that in the first month of the war, Ukraine launched investigations into more than 2,500 war crimes cases and identified 186 suspects, including Russian government officials, military leaders and propagandists.
But as top government officials, Putin and Lavrov would likely be immune from prosecution in Ukrainian courts.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER OPTIONS?
Yes. The Nuremberg Tribunal, set up after WWII to try Nazi war criminals, looms large as an example of how Putin could be held accountable by a court set up specifically for that purpose. And special tribunals were established to investigate crimes in Yugoslavia and Rwanda, among other places.
In theory, such a court could do what the ICC cannot: Prosecute Putin for the crime of aggression, even if he stays in Russia.
In early March, a campaign to create a special tribunal to investigate the crime of aggression against Ukraine, dubbed Justice for Ukraine, kicked off and quickly gained momentum. More than 140 prominent lawyers, scholars, writers and political figures, including Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba, former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and a former prosecutor for the Nuremberg tribunal, have signed on. A public petition in support of the effort got over 1.3 million signatures within weeks.
Criticisms of this approach include that it could take too long to set up, cost too much money, lack legitimacy and create the appearance of selective justice. Why, some argue, should there be a special tribunal for Russian aggression in Ukraine when there wasn’t one against the US and its allies for invading Iraq?
But others say Putin’s attack on Ukraine has shown just how inadequate existing legal options are and that a new approach is urgently required.
“Since World War II we haven’t had a case of brazen, large-scale aggression by one sovereign European nation against another,” said Mykola Gnatovsky, a prominent Ukrainian lawyer and professor who has been tapped by Ukraine’s foreign ministry to help craft a new Nuremburg-style tribunal for Russian aggression. “Accountability is important because accountability is a way to prevent this in the future.”
How would those accused of Ukraine war crimes be prosecuted?
https://arab.news/nnrg4
How would those accused of Ukraine war crimes be prosecuted?
- Less than a month after Vladimir Putin’s order to drop the first bombs on his neighbor, the United States declared that Russian forces were committing war crimes in Ukraine
Indonesia’s Bali moves to ban plastic bottles
- Bali produces around 300,000 tons of plastic waste every year
- It was the first Indonesian province to ban single-use plastics in 2019
JAKARTA: Indonesia’s Bali began banning plastic bottles on Monday, in a move aimed at tackling plastic pollution in one of the world’s most popular tourist destinations.
The island produces around 300,000 tons of plastic waste annually, more than half of which goes uncollected, including 33,000 tons that gets into Bali’s waterways.
Under the new policy, plastic bottles will be banned across all government offices and schools in Bali.
“We hope this policy will be implemented in full responsibility by all relevant parties for a green and sustainable Bali,” Dewa Made Indra, the province’s regional secretary, said in a statement.
The policy also requires “school principals and teachers to serve as role models for students by using tumblers to reduce or eliminate plastic waste from food and beverage packaging.”
In recent years, Bali’s plastic waste problem has made international headlines as iconic beaches were littered with trash during the peak of the monsoon season, when heavy winds and rain wash up pollution also from neighboring Java island.
Last month, clips of massive “trash waves” on the shoreline of Jimbaran beach went viral on social media, marking one of the year’s first instances of what has become an annual occurrence around the island.
The issue is also a concern for the central government, with Indonesia’s Environment Minister Hanif Faisol Nurofiq taking part in Bali’s beach clean-up events twice last month.
“It is urgent for the sake of environmental sustainability, and also considering that Bali is a barometer for tourism in Indonesia, so we must show that our country is dedicated to find solutions to the plastic waste management problem,” Ratna Hendratmoko, who heads the Natural Resources Conservation Center in Bali, told Arab News.
Bali, an island known for its scenic natural beauty and rich traditional culture, draws millions of foreign tourists annually. In 2024, it welcomed more than 6.3 million international visitors — which is around half of the total number of such arrivals in Indonesia.
In 2019, the Bali provincial government banned single-use plastics in an effort to tackle marine pollution, becoming the first Indonesian province to do so.
The latest policy, which mandates government officials to bring their own reusable water bottles, may be the first step to implementing an islandwide ban.
“Our staff are committed to comply with this new policy,” I Made Rentin, head of the forestry and environment agency in Bali, told Arab News.
“For now, we will strengthen implementation internally at the government level.”
Cautious optimism in Bangladesh as post-Hasina relations with Pakistan grow
- Head of Bangladesh interim government has met Pakistani PM twice since taking office on Aug. 8
- In 2024, Pakistani cargo ships began to arrive at Bangladesh’s main port for the first time in over 50 years
Dhaka: The ouster of Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina last August has opened a “new horizon of opportunities” for diplomacy with Pakistan, analysts, political parties and members of the public said, as Dhaka and Islamabad move to befriend each other after decades of acrimonious ties.
The head of Bangladesh’s interim government, Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus, has met with Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif twice since taking office on Aug. 8 after Hasina fled the country following a student-led popular uprising against her government.
Hasina’s government was hostile toward Pakistan but closely allied with India, where she remains exiled. While her removal from office was followed by the cooling of relations between Dhaka and New Delhi, exchanges with Islamabad started to grow.
“The recent developments, in terms of bilateral exchanges with Pakistan, are a process to normalize the relationship. For various reasons, it was below the normal level in the last 15 years. Now, an opportunity has been created to normalize the relationship, which is natural between two states,” Humayun Kabir, former Bangladeshi ambassador to the US, told Arab News.
“I believe India can approach this bilateral relationship normally if they choose to. From India’s perspective, there is no reason to view it negatively. We want the relationship between India and Bangladesh to be considered bilaterally, without being influenced by issues with Pakistan. Similarly, our bilateral relationship with Pakistan will continue independently of any issues with India. I think this approach will create a dynamic in the relationship within the broader context of South Asia.”
Political parties that were in opposition to Hasina’s Awami League party’s government — its archrival the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and the largest Islamist party Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, which was banned during her rule — were both optimistic about growing Pakistan ties.
“During the previous regime, Sheikh Hasina maintained close ties with only one country. In her own words, she said: ‘What Bangladesh has given to India, India will remember forever.’ This foreign policy was not the right approach,” said Matiur Rahman Akand, spokesperson of Jamaat-e-Islami.
Nawshad Zamir, the international affairs secretary of the Bangladesh Nationalist party, also welcomed the fact that the two nations had “resumed normal relationship, like before.”
But the memory of the 1971 war for independence remains alive.
Jamaat-e-Islami was at the time an active political party and during the war was aligned with Pakistan, opposing the independence movement.
On the other hand, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party was founded by Ziaur Rahman, a prominent Bangladesh Forces commander and one of the leading figures of the independence war.
While for both parties the normalization of ties with Islamabad is a welcome development, ordinary Bangladeshis see it with a dose of caution.
“We can establish regional cooperation. And I think this is a chance to become a regional leader … (but) personally, I believe that Pakistan first needs to deal with the 1971 issue,” said Mustafa Musfiq Talukdar, student at Dhaka University.
“In 1974, (Pakistan’s then Prime Minister) Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto came to Bangladesh and he kind of apologized personally, but it wasn’t something formal. So, we demand a formal apology from Pakistan for everything they did in 1971.”
For Tamim Muntaseer, a Dhaka-based researcher, an official apology was also essential for the relationship to move forward.
“We have seen that a new horizon of opportunities with Pakistan has been created. And I think this should be supported in terms of justice,” he said.
“Bangladesh and Pakistan are aligned in terms of their regional economy, trade … We should also consider people-to-people relationships.”
Such exchanges have already been underway over the past few months. Since December, Pakistani artists have been performing in Dhaka, while Bangladeshi films have been screened at cinemas in Pakistan.
Pakistani cargo ships also began to arrive at Bangladesh’s main Chittagong port for the first time since the 1971 war.
“I am quite positive about the current developments between Bangladesh and Pakistan,” Tahmid Al-Mudassir Choudhury, another Dhaka University student, told Arab News.
“I am not saying that we must forgive everything. Still, we can keep a good relationship with Pakistan … We have seen that in cricket: Bangladeshi people supporting the Pakistani cricket team, and the people of Pakistan also supporting the Bangladeshi cricket team. We can celebrate those similarities, and this can bring the people of Bangladesh and Pakistan together.”
UN says shooting incident at Kabul compound killed one
- UN says gunshots were fired by member of Taliban’s security forces at multilateral agency’s largest compound
- Person killed was member of Taliban-run security forces who was outside the compound, unclear what provoked firing
ISLAMABAD: Gunshots fired by a member of the Taliban’s security forces at the United Nations’ largest compound killed one person and injured another in Kabul, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) said in a statement on Monday.
The incident took place on Sunday, it said.
The person killed was a member of the Taliban-run security forces who was outside the compound, the statement said without adding any details. The person injured was an international security guard contracted by the UN, it said.
“UN-contracted security guards did not return fire during the incident,” it said.
It was unclear what provoked the firing. Both the Taliban and the UN were investigating the incident.
Kabul’s interior ministry spokesman Abdul Mateen Qaniee confirmed that a Taliban guard was killed and one UN contractor suffered injuries.
Taliban authorities halted all movement in and out of the compound following the incident, UNAMA said, but those restrictions have now been lifted.
The compound houses the offices of multiple UN agencies, funds and programs, and accommodation for UN international staff members.
Ukrainian troops lose ground with fewer fighters and exposed supply lines
- Moscow is set on capturing as much territory as possible as the Trump administration is pushing for negotiations to end the war
- Ukrainian soldiers in Pokrovsk said that Russian forces switched tactics in recent weeks, attacking their flanks instead of going head-on
POKROVSK REGION, Ukraine: A dire shortage of infantry troops and supply routes coming under Russian drone attacks are conspiring against Ukrainian forces in Pokrovsk, where decisive battles in the nearly three-year war are playing out — and time is running short.
Ukrainian troops are losing ground around the crucial supply hub, which lies at the confluence of multiple highways leading to key cities in the eastern Donetsk region as well as an important railway station.
Moscow is set on capturing as much territory as possible as the Trump administration is pushing for negotiations to end the war and recently froze foreign aid to Ukraine, a move that has shocked Ukrainian officials already apprehensive about the intentions of the new US president, their most important ally. Military aid has not stopped, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has said.
Ukrainian soldiers in Pokrovsk said that Russian forces switched tactics in recent weeks, attacking their flanks instead of going head-on to form a pincer movement around the city. With Russians in control of dominant heights, Ukrainian supply routes are now within their range. Heavy fog in recent days prevented Ukrainian soldiers from effectively using surveillance drones, allowing Russians to consolidate and take more territory.
Meanwhile, Ukrainian commanders say they do not have enough reserves to sustain defense lines and that new infantry units are failing to execute operations. Many pin hopes on Mykhailo Drapatyi, a respected commander recently appointed by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as ground forces chief, to shift the dynamic and counterattack.
“The war is won by logistics. If there is no logistics, there is no infantry, because there is no way to supply it,” said the deputy commander of the Da Vinci Wolves battalion, known by the call sign Afer.
“(Russians) have learned this and are doing it quite well.”
Poor weather at the worst time
A combination of factors led Kyiv to effectively lose the settlement of Velyka Novosilka this past week, their most significant gain since seizing the city of Kurakhove in the Donetsk region in January.
Scattered groups of Ukrainian soldiers are still present in Velyka Novosilka’s southern sector, Ukrainian commanders said, prompting criticism from some military experts who questioned why the higher command did not order a full withdrawal.
The road-junction village is 15 kilometers (9 miles) from the neighboring Dnipropetrovsk region, where authorities have begun digging fortifications for the first time since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, anticipating further Russian advances.
Russia amassed a large number of infantry around Velyka Novosilka, soldiers there said. As heavy fog set in in recent days, Ukrainian drones “barely worked” to conduct surveillance, one commander near Pokrovsk told The Associated Press. Long-range and medium-range surveillance was impossible, he said. He spoke on condition of anonymity in order to speak freely about sensitive military matters.
“Because of this, the enemy was amassing forces … taking up positions, digging in. They were very good at it,” he said.
It was at that fateful moment that Russian forces launched a massive attack: Up to 10 columns of armored vehicles, each with up to 10 units, moved out from various directions.
Ukrainian logistics in peril
Key logistics routes along asphalted roads and highways are under direct threat from Russian drones as a result of Moscow’s recent gains, further straining Ukrainian troops.
Russian forces now occupy key dominant heights around the Pokrovsk region, which allows them to use drones up to 30 kilometers (18 miles) deep into Ukrainian front lines.
The Pokrovsk-Pavlohrad-Dnipro highway is “already under the control of Russian drones,” said the commander at Pokrovsk’s flanks. Russian forces are less than 4 kilometers ( 2 1/2 miles) away and are affecting Ukrainian traffic, he said. “Now the road is only 10 percent of its former capacity,” he said.
Another paved highway, the Myrnohrad-Kostyantynivka road, is also under Russian fire, he said.
This also means that in poor weather, military vehicles, including armored personnel carriers, tanks and pickup trucks, have to trudge through the open fields to deliver fuel, food and ammunition, as well as evacuate the wounded.
In a first-aid station near Pokrovsk, a paramedic with the call sign Marik said evacuating wounded soldiers once took hours, now it takes days.
“Everything is visible (by enemy drones) and it is very difficult,” he said.
New recruits are unprepared
Ukrainian soldiers in Pokrovsk said shortages of fighting troops are “catastrophic” and challenges are compounded by newly created infantry units that are poorly trained and inexperienced, putting more pressure on battle-hardened brigades having to step in to stabilize the front line.
Afer, the deputy commander, complained that new recruits are “constantly extending the front line because they leave their positions, they do not hold them, they do not control them, they do not monitor them. We do almost all the work for them.”
“Because of this, having initially a 2-kilometer area of responsibility, you end up with 8-9 kilometers per battalion, which is a lot and we don’t have enough resources,” Afer said. Drones are especially hard to come by for his battalion, he said, adding they only have half of what they need.
“It’s not because they have lower quality infantry, but because they are completely unprepared for modern warfare,” he said of the new recruits.
His battalion has almost no reserves, forcing infantry units to hold front-line positions for weeks at a time. For every one of his soldiers, Russians have 20, he said, emphasizing how outnumbered they are.
Back at the first-aid station, a wounded soldier with the call sign Fish was recovering from a leg wound sustained after he tried to evacuate a fallen comrade. He had moved him from a dugout to load him into a vehicle when the Russian mortar shell exploded nearby.
“We are fighting back as much as we can, as best as we can,” he said.
South Africa’s Ramaphosa to engage Trump over aid suspension
JOHANNESBURG: South African President Cyril Ramaphosa said on Monday that he looked forward to engaging with US President Donald Trump, after Trump said he would cut off funding for South Africa, citing land confiscations.
“We look forward to engaging with the Trump administration over our land reform policy and issues of bilateral interest. We are certain that out of those engagements, we will share a better and common understanding over these matters,” Ramaphosa said in a statement issued by the presidency.
“South Africa is a constitutional democracy that is deeply rooted in the rule of law, justice and equality. The South African government has not confiscated any land.”
Ramaphosa said except for PEPFAR aid, which constitutes 17 percent of South Africa’s HIV/Aids program, there was no other significant funding provided by the United States.
