Could Russia be prosecuted for war crimes? We’ve been hearing about Russia’s use of Vacuum bombs and cluster bombs, which are prohibited under the Geneva Conventions. We also read about Putin’s refusal to stop a military campaign. Can Putin be prosecuted? This article will discuss some of the legal issues that surround the issue. And it will discuss the constitutional issues that prevent Putin from being prosecuted.
Russia’s use of cluster bombs
Humanitarian groups have expressed concern about Russian military forces using cluster bombs on civilian targets in Ukraine. These weapons are widely banned and are indiscriminately used against civilians. These bombs open in midair and rain down hundreds of smaller projectiles that can kill a person or destroy a vehicle. A 220mm Uragan rocket used in the bombing of Okhtyrka in eastern Ukraine dropped the bomb on a kindergarten
According to Amnesty International, Russia may be guilty of war crimes for its use of cluster munitions in Ukraine. The cluster bombs hurl dozens to hundreds of smaller bombs over a large area. Some of the bombs do not explode on impact but explode upon contact, similar to landmines. Using cluster bombs in populated areas is illegal under international law.
In addition to being widely used, cluster munitions can be difficult to control and can hit civilians indiscriminately. International human rights groups have warned against the use of cluster munitions near civilian areas. In addition to this, a significant percentage of submunitions do not detonate on impact, creating secondary risks to nearby people. In 2008, more than 100 countries signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions. But Russia has not signed the treaty.
While the ICC can pursue individuals who directed the crimes, it is unlikely to prosecute the Russian government as a whole. But if the ICC finds that Russia used cluster bombs, it can bring charges against those responsible for them. It may even be possible to hold them accountable. There are certain steps to follow before an accusation is issued. And if the charges are found to be true, there will be a burden of proof on the defendants.
The Russian government has repeatedly used indiscriminate attacks against civilians. In the second Chechen war, Russia used cluster bombs to destroy the city of Grozny, leaving a hole in the map and a UN report deemed it the world’s worst destroyed city. The Assad regime is under international pressure to avoid war crimes by the UN and the international community.
Vacuum bombs are prohibited by the Geneva Conventions
A vacuum bomb, also known as a thermobaric weapon, sucks atmospheric oxygen and then explodes in a high-temperature fireball. While cluster bombs devastate broad areas, vacuum bombs are designed to target hard-to-reach sites.
Despite the Geneva Conventions’ prohibitions against such weapons, some countries still employ them in wartime. In Ukraine, Russian forces may have used thermobaric bombs and cluster munitions, which are known as vacuum bombs. Nevertheless, the use of thermobaric munitions is not prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. But the United States, Russia, and Ukraine are not signatories to the treaty.
Although there is no direct proof that Russian forces are using vacuum bombs in the current Ukrainian war, the use of cluster munitions has been proved. The NATO-Russian alliance has deployed to Ukraine, and CNN recently reported that an advanced TOS-1 Multiple Rocket Launcher was spotted near the border with Russia. Though the use of vacuum bombs has not been proven, it is worth noting that two civilian targets in Ukraine were hit. In one case, a preschool in north-eastern Ukraine was hit by a cluster munitions attack. Three children died in the attack.
The use of vacuum bombs and cluster bombs in Ukraine has caused widespread controversy. These weapons vaporize human flesh and cause massive destruction. Despite their widespread use, they are still illegal under the Geneva Conventions. Although Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has not been successful, it has certainly provoked widespread concern. Various human rights groups and the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States have condemned the Russian army’s use of these weapons in the conflict.
Russia’s refusal to halt a military campaign
In order to pursue war crimes against Russia, prosecutors must prove that a state leader ordered the illegal attack, knew about the crime, and failed to stop it. In the case of Mariupol, legal experts have suggested that the bombings of Mariupol fall under the definition of war crimes. However, securing a war crime conviction is difficult. Prosecutors must prove intent, which can be difficult in many cases. The prosecutors are often unable to get evidence from war zones and must overcome intimidation to make witnesses talk to them.
In the past week, Human Rights Watch has spoken with witnesses, victims, and local residents who were affected by the Russian military operation. Some of these people were journalists. Others spoke on condition that their identities remain anonymous. The United States ambassador to the UN said that Russian forces used outlawed weapons during the conflict in the Donbass region. In addition, the U.S. ambassador to the UN also said that the Russian military campaign could be prosecuted for war crimes if it does not stop.
Putin’s immunity from prosecution
One of the most important questions in today’s legal climate concerns the scope of the Russian President’s immunity from war crimes charges. It is not clear if he would be tried for crimes against humanity, but if Russia were to prosecute its leader, they could have the same chance of winning as their US counterparts. In addition to the Russian President, other people who are responsible for war crimes can also be tried, including members of the government and military chain of command.
If Putin is convicted for war crimes, he could face charges of aggression. Starting a war is a crime in and of itself. It is separate from the specific crimes committed during a war. In fact, the Nuremberg defendants were charged with this crime. But no one has been brought to trial under this crime for 77 years. That’s largely because the crime of aggression is so broad and so difficult to prove.
It is possible that if Putin is convicted, it would be extremely difficult to drag him before an ICC tribunal. However, it is also possible that the ICC might set up a special tribunal to try him for war crimes committed in the Ukraine. The ICC could also investigate Russian war crimes through the Ukraine, since it has accepted its jurisdiction over Ukraine. A case against Putin would send a powerful message to the world, especially in the Russian diplomatic community. An indictment would also mean that he would no longer be able to represent Russia in international negotiations and further marginalize him domestically.
