The western world’s use of international law as one medium to resist Russian president Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has placed the geopolitical and sociocultural ramifications of legal action in the international sphere on full display. With the International Criminal Court issuing an arrest warrant for president Putin, accusations of the ICC solely targeting weaker state actors have subsided. Professor Lawrence Douglas’ characterization of the arrest warrant as an international “attempt to reckon with the strong” marks the second such instance, as the ICC under Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda kickstarted a preliminary investigation into the United States for possible crimes committed by the American military in Afghanistan. However, current Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan’s politically motivated decision to suspend the American investigation, combined with the present-day arrest warrant for Putin, raises questions regarding the ICC’s enforcement capabilities and fuels claims of the court’s biases towards western entities. More importantly, the ICC also does not possess jurisdiction to adequately try Russian leadership, as neither Russia nor Ukraine are party to the Rome Statute. The impact of the court is limited to preventing Putin from traveling to ICC-affiliated countries (admittedly, a fairly strong consequence).
These concerns of enforceability and western bias apply equally to any international tribunal, the more likely forum for hypothetically prosecuting top Russian leadership in order to target Putin for the crime of aggression. Past international criminal tribunals have only occurred under the context of a victor prosecuting a weakened losing side unable to resist facing accountability in the victors’ courts. While Professor Oona Hathaway correctly raises the possibility of leveraging Russian oligarchs’ and businessmen’s foreign assets to indirectly apply pressure upon Putin, an international tribunal may also face resistance from countries fearing international precedent going against invading states in any territorial dispute. Overall international sentiment, particularly in the western world, seems to favor holding Putin accountable in a United Nations or European tribunal. Such a trial, however, may expose the cleavages between western states and Global South nations by highlighting the historical one-sided nature of international tribunals.
The sociocultural impact of prosecution attempts against Russian leadership also cannot be understated. For both rapes war crimes committed by Russian military personnel, the impact of personal testimony holds profound significance for the eventual healing process following the war. Examining rape crimes from a historical lens, the visceral shock and shame felt by Germans upon discovering that Russian soldiers raped German women after World War II underscores the stigma carried by victims and horror attributed to the crime. Russia itself treats the widespread rapes committed by WWII Russian soldiers as a “toxic” topic. More significantly, Brigette Meese’s response to a question on advising a Ukrainian rape victim – “I would tell her to forget about it if she can” – and Meese’s daughter’s alarmed response to hearing the news of her mother’s rape highlights the personal and social pain felt as a result of the act, both in the past and present.
Victims of war crimes also face challenges, albeit in a different manner, in discussing their experiences. Journalist Lindsey Hilsum and Ukrainian elected official Kateryna Sukhomlinova’s attempts to elicit testimony from victims highlight the profound impact (in multiple ways) of these severe crimes. Sukhomlinova’s travels to numerous refugee centers across Poland shows the importance of gathering victim testimony for a potential international tribunal prosecuting Putin. Yet the effects of these gruesome crimes are even more impactful. Hilsum holds “no doubt that these [Ukrainian] people are victims of, and witnesses to, war crimes,” and even hears the specifics; perhaps most gruesome is the description of “Russian soldiers g[iving] rations to people huddled in a basement – and then thr[owing] in a grenade.” Maria’s description of “horrible” people, with an assertion that the war shows the “real face[s]” of victims, emphasizes these war crimes’ impact on social relationships. As “life becomes a simple matter of survival,” discussion of these crimes becomes more difficult and testimony likely becomes a distant conception, only in the back of victims’ minds, for future legal action against Russian leadership.
Russia’s invasion into Ukraine has threatened global stability and likely caused trauma for a generation of Ukrainians. The legal consequences faced by Putin and top Russian officials, as highlighted by the readings, may be rather limited in scope. Moreover, the impact of legal efforts on Ukrainian culture must not be overlooked. Both the individual and worldwide implications for legal action deserve journalists’ attention and global leaders’ scrutiny as the conflict rages on.
