For its part, in a framework document published on November 30, the European Commission appeared to support the establishment of a special court to try Russian leaders responsible for the aggression against Ukraine. This is originally a strong request from Kyiv conveyed by many personalities, notably in a column published by Le Monde on March 4 and borne by several pilot states.
Such a request is, of course, perfectly understandable.
On the face of it, what is the value of efforts in national courts and the International Criminal Court (ICC) if they cannot deal with the crime of aggression? [« La CPI n’est pas compétente pour le crime d’agression commis par des ressortissants d’un Etat qui n’a pas ratifié le statut de Rome instituant la CPI, ce qui est le cas de la Russie »] ? A key element of the mobilized justice ecosystem is missing when the mere decision to use force, in clear violation of the United Nations Charter, evades human justice.
Aggression is a bit like the crime that includes all others, the matrix of abuses denounced on the ground. And in this world undergoing a major strategic reconfiguration, there are values whose transgression cannot go unanswered. Either. But to propose a special court – a first since Nuremberg [1945-1946] – nevertheless, a delicate initiative remains politically and legally uncertain.
anti-westernism
First, sensitive given the double standard it reveals. Supporting justice on the menu and off the menu comes at a price, it would be wrong to be indifferent to it. Some will find it easy to counter the passivity of the “international community” in expected responses to other patently illegal offensives, whether against Iraq or against Palestine, to cite just two well-known examples.
Also read: Article reserved for our subscribers Ukraine’s Prosecutor General wants to “put Russia before all its responsibilities”
Anti-Westerners feed on this selective indignation, and multilateralism dies from it. The South argues regularly, before the United Nations and in other forums. Everyone also understands that many of the powers in the north are unhappy with the promotion of such jurisdiction, they who had worked so hard to limit the ICC’s jurisdiction over the crime of aggression and ensure that it is not simply confiscated , without the states involved having accepted the principle. It was then necessary to protect external operations to resist any strategic use of the law. Who would be willing to embrace reversal and then support the freedom they allow themselves here elsewhere?
You still have 39.12% of this article to read. The following is for subscribers only.