����vlog

We have charged 4 Russia affiliated military personnel with war crimes. It certainly is *** war crime. He is *** war criminal. In times of conflict, politicians and activists label certain acts or attacks as war crimes. But what exactly does that mean? And what are the repercussions? Let's take *** look at why war crimes are hard to prosecute and how history plays *** role. War crimes are violations of international humanitarian law during times of armed conflict. The most current definition was established by the Rome Statute of 1998. Some examples include intentionally attacking civilians, cruel treatment and torture, murder, rape, and attacking buildings dedicated to historic monuments or hospitals. Domestic courts are typically responsible for prosecuting war crimes. However, if the country is unable to prosecute, for example, if the regime that caused the crimes is still in power, other institutions can step in. Other options include international, mixed, and hybrid tribunals and the International Criminal Court, known as the ICC. Based in The Hague, Netherlands, the ICC operates as *** permanent independent court, separate from the UN. The court is considered the last resort to prosecute those accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. It's comprised of 18 judges, each from *** different member country and elected by member states. In total, there's around 120 member states. Since its formation in 2002, the court has been able to convict individuals of war crimes, including Thomas Lubega. The former leader of the Union of Congolese Patriots for charges of enlisting children into his group and using them to participate in hostilities. He was sentenced to 14 years in prison. While the ICC has its share of successes, it also has its share of critiques. One issue is the belief that the court has too little authority, making it inefficient to punish war criminals. The ICC does not have its own police force to track and arrest suspects, and as *** result, they have to rely on the cooperation of national police services to assist. Critics also argue there's an imbalance of which type of countries the ICC prosecutes. We see this in the ICC. Almost all of the prosecutions involve defendants from Africa, from African countries, lesser developed countries that are much more vulnerable. To prosecution. Some African countries have even threatened to leave the ICC because of this. The ICC denies any bias, stating some cases were referred to by the affected countries and others referred to by the UN. Another issue is that not all countries, especially powerful countries, are members. Quite famously, the United States has not subscribed to the International Criminal Court. Again, I think this has *** lot to do with American perceptions of sovereignty. The concept of sovereignty has deep roots in history. In the 1600s, *** philosopher named Jean Bodin developed the modern concept of sovereignty. Bodin's concept of sovereignty really assumed that there was no authority superior to that of the sovereign. The support of the The idea became so widespread, it was just assumed. Leaders would add oblivion clauses in peace treaties that would essentially forgive outrageous crimes committed during the war. And so we see this practice then in Europe up until really World War One. During World War 1, Germany invaded Belgium, killing thousands of civilians. This influenced the allied countries to call for Germany's leader, Kaiser Wilhelm, to be tried for starting *** war. It was an unprecedented move that was met with hot debate. Then US President Woodrow Wilson refused to try Kaiser Wilhelm under criminal charges, but rather political or moral charges. The Americans were of the view that there was no authority. They go back to Bodin here, there was no authority in Germany higher than him, therefore he could not be held legally accountable for what he did. This would change considerably with World War 2. I think it had *** lot to do. With the American experience of carnage and of suffering. And of mass death. In 1944, Germany launched the Battle of the Bulge as its last ditch counterattack in Belgium. German SS troops murdered more than 80 US soldiers and Belgian prisoners. The Americans were simply outraged by this, that really seemed to swing. *** lot of the policymakers who would contribute to the creation of the Nuremberg war crimes trials. The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of imposes *** grave responsibility. For the first time, high-level officials were being prosecuted for their war crimes. It was *** fairly thorough reckoning. Despite the support of the Nuremberg trials, the allied countries still did not want an international criminal court. The Americans wanted no part of this. The Soviets wanted no part of this, and the British wanted no part of this, the French wanted no part of this. I mean these were colonial powers who didn't want their themselves or their people working for them, their lieutenants to be subjected to uh to *** criminal trial for what they were doing. Historically, the US has had *** complicated relationship with the ICC. What they don't support is the idea of American soldiers. Or American military personnel of any kind, or even, you know, political leaders ever being prosecuted for for their international defenses. This is an assumption. That really runs through every administration uh in American history, whether it's Democratic or Republican. The issue is that the court can only investigate non-member states if the alleged offenses took place in *** member state's territory, if the non-member state accepts the court's jurisdiction, or with the Security Council's authorization. Ultimately, Bryant says the US supporting the ICC would be *** game changer in war crime prosecution. Another possibility is changing the configuration of the UN Security Council, and in particular this the power of the veto. Bryant says powerful countries like Russia have loopholes to avoiding prosecution, even from the UN. As *** permanent member of the Security Council, Russia can veto any effort by the UN to establish an ad hoc tribunal for the prosecution of Russian crimes. So if there's an effort at some point to try to create *** *** Nuremberg style ad hoc tribunal that would prosecute Russian offenders for what they, what they've done in Ukraine, Russia would be in *** position to veto any such, any such effort. If the veto power of Security Council members could be avoided. Then the UN could pursue cases against powerful countries, I think more easily. On the individual level, Wright advises on getting involved with organizations fighting against war crimes. Support human rights initiatives, NGOs that are involved in investigating allegations of genocide, genocide watch for example. And to even move forward with prosecuting can take *** long time, even longer, when the conflict is still ongoing. To have *** trial, you have to have evidence, and to get evidence, you have to be on the ground and you have to be able to secure that evidence. Tough to do when the when the war is still going on. It's dangerous for one thing. So the conflict really has to come to an end with the prosecuting side winning.