40 or so countries have agreed we need a special criminal tribunal for the crime of aggression. But there is a fundamental rift between Ukraine, central European countries and smaller European countries who want a full international tribunal. The U.S., UK and France basically want a glorified Ukrainian office in the hay because they are deeply concerned that if they create a special criminal tribunals it could happen to another member of the Security Council.
On the 17th March 2023, just over a year into Russia’s war in Ukraine, the International Criminal Court issued two arrest warrants. One for Vladimir Putin and one for Maria Lvova-Belova, whose title is Commissioner for Children’s Rights in the Office of the President of the Russian Federation. Some viewed these arrest warrants as a fundamental point of progress and justice in the war. Others raised concerns about the feasibility and potential consequences of prosecuting a sitting head of state.
Throughout history, leaders accused of war crimes have faced varying degrees of accountability and Putin’s case raises important questions about legal frameworks, the role of international institutions like the International Criminal Court, and the challenges involved in holding high-ranking officials responsible for their actions.
On this episode of the podcast, we analyse the implications of prosecuting Putin for war crimes - with Philippe Sands, lawyer and author of East West Street: On the Origins of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity - and Daniel Krcmaric, academic and author of The Justice Dilemma: Leaders and Exile in an Era of Accountability. Our host is journalist and academic Philippa Thomas.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices