"The decision will make it possible to hold Russia's senior political and military leadership to account specifically for the crime of aggression, not merely for its consequences," Zelensky said.
  • abbadon420@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    314·
    7 days ago

    Good! But why The Netherlands, why not The International Court in The Hague? That is it’s own entity, why can the court not host it’s own tribunal?

    • pulsewidth@lemmy.worldEnglish
      201·
      7 days ago

      If you read the article you’d know that they specifically chose The Netherlands because the The Hague is in The Netherlands…

      The Netherlands was the only country to offer to host the court, and it was presumed to be the correct place in which to hold proceedings, given The Hague also hosts the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice.

      • abbadon420@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        43·
        7 days ago

        This is the exact passage which prompted my question. Why the Netherlands and why not the ICC? The recent case of Duterte, the former president of the Philipines, was hosted by the Court, not by the Netherlands. Why would this case be different? Or do the Netherlands speak for the Court and can they extend hosting in the Court’s name?

        • Successful_Try543@feddit.orgEnglish
          2·
          7 days ago

          Why the Netherlands and why not the ICC?

          On 24 February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine. Whilst the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutes crimes under international law such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and the crime of aggression, the ICC generally has no jurisdiction if neither the attacking nor the attacked state is a party to the Rome Statute. [1] In February 2022, neither Russia nor Ukraine was a member of the ICC in The Hague.[2] It was only after the invasion that Ukraine acceded to the Rome Statute and became a member of the ICC on 1 January 2025. [3]

          In the context of the conflict in eastern Ukraine, Ukraine – as a non-member – had granted the Court jurisdiction for limited periods on the basis of Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute. The second declaration of this jurisdiction is valid for an indefinite period and thus also covers acts committed from 24 February 2022 onwards. [4] However, this declaration does not grant the International Criminal Court jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. The Rome Statute prohibits the International Criminal Court from prosecuting this crime if it was committed by nationals of, or on the territory of, a non-State Party (Article 12 up to (5)) or if jurisdiction has not been previously conferred by the UN Security Council (Article 15).[5]

          With Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, one member of the Council of Europe has attacked another. [6]

          However, under the principle of state immunity applicable under international law, the Russian leadership – comprising President Vladimir Putin, Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov – cannot be prosecuted before the courts of other states, such as those of Ukraine, at least whilst they remain in office.[7][2] This immunity does not, however, apply before international courts, as these exercise the punitive powers of the international community. [2] As a corresponding resolution by the UN General Assembly is unlikely to secure a majority, but a regional exception to immunity for the crime of aggression appears to be emerging in Europe, and the vast majority of Council of Europe members – including Ukraine and Russia – criminalise wars of aggression in their national laws, a European tribunal could override the defendants’ immunity.[2]

          https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sondertribunal_für_das_Verbrechen_der_Aggression_gegen_die_Ukraine (translated using DeepL)

    • Vittelius@feddit.orgEnglish
      9·
      7 days ago

      While most of Russia’s war crimes can be prosecuted in other courts, there is no legal entity authorized to rule on the crime of aggression — first coined to prosecute the Nazis for World War II — which means a dedicated tribunal needed to be established.