Options for Prosecuting Russian Aggression Against Ukraine: A Critical Analysis
Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Standard
Options for Prosecuting Russian Aggression Against Ukraine : A Critical Analysis. / Heller, Kevin Jon.
I: Journal of Genocide Research, Bind 26, Nr. 1, 2024, s. 1-24.Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Options for Prosecuting Russian Aggression Against Ukraine
T2 - A Critical Analysis
AU - Heller, Kevin Jon
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - In the wake of Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, there is broad consensus–atleast in the Global North1–that Russian leaders must be prosecuted for the crime ofaggression. That consensus, however, does not extend tohowRussian aggressionshould be prosecuted. Some commentators argue that the International Criminal Court(ICC) is the most appropriate forum, even if enlivening the Court’s jurisdiction requiresamending the Rome Statute. Others call either for an ad hoc international tribunalsimilar to the ICTY and ICTR or for a hybrid tribunal based in the Ukrainian judicialsystem and supported by the Council of Europe. And still others advocate for nationalprosecutions conducted by Ukraine itself or by third states that have universal jurisdictionover aggression.This article provides a critical assessment of the various options for prosecuting Russianleaders for their role in the invasion of Ukraine. The article is divided into three sections.Section 1 explains why Russia’s invasion of Ukraine violates the prohibition of the use offorce in Art. 2(4) of the UN Charter and amounts to a criminal act of aggression undereither customary international law or the Rome Statute. It also briefly addresseswhether Belarus’s support for Russia’s invasion was itself a criminal act. Section 2, theheart of the article, assesses three potential international options for prosecuting the indi-viduals responsible for Russian aggression, paying particular attention to issues of immu-nity and selectivity. Finally, Section 3 examines proposals for domestic prosecutions inUkraine or elsewhere.
AB - In the wake of Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, there is broad consensus–atleast in the Global North1–that Russian leaders must be prosecuted for the crime ofaggression. That consensus, however, does not extend tohowRussian aggressionshould be prosecuted. Some commentators argue that the International Criminal Court(ICC) is the most appropriate forum, even if enlivening the Court’s jurisdiction requiresamending the Rome Statute. Others call either for an ad hoc international tribunalsimilar to the ICTY and ICTR or for a hybrid tribunal based in the Ukrainian judicialsystem and supported by the Council of Europe. And still others advocate for nationalprosecutions conducted by Ukraine itself or by third states that have universal jurisdictionover aggression.This article provides a critical assessment of the various options for prosecuting Russianleaders for their role in the invasion of Ukraine. The article is divided into three sections.Section 1 explains why Russia’s invasion of Ukraine violates the prohibition of the use offorce in Art. 2(4) of the UN Charter and amounts to a criminal act of aggression undereither customary international law or the Rome Statute. It also briefly addresseswhether Belarus’s support for Russia’s invasion was itself a criminal act. Section 2, theheart of the article, assesses three potential international options for prosecuting the indi-viduals responsible for Russian aggression, paying particular attention to issues of immu-nity and selectivity. Finally, Section 3 examines proposals for domestic prosecutions inUkraine or elsewhere.
KW - IMMUNITIES
KW - CRIME
U2 - 10.1080/14623528.2022.2095094
DO - 10.1080/14623528.2022.2095094
M3 - Journal article
VL - 26
SP - 1
EP - 24
JO - Journal of Genocide Research
JF - Journal of Genocide Research
SN - 1462-3528
IS - 1
ER -
ID: 342568848