The Importance of Prosecuting President Vladimir Putin for the International Crime of Aggression – JURIST – Commentary

The author, a former United Nations chief prosecutor, argues that prosecuting Russian President Vladimir Putin for the international crime of aggression against Ukraine is critical to upholding international law, deterring future aggressors, and maintaining world peace. ..

The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has highlighted the urgent need for accountability on the international stage, particularly with regard to sovereignty violations and wars of aggression. President Vladimir Putin’s actions in Ukraine not only pose a significant threat to world peace, but also represent a challenge to the fundamental principles of international law. Prosecuting Putin for the international crime of aggression against Ukraine is critically important and requires the establishment of an internationally created court that adheres to certain fundamental legal principles to ensure an effective and fair trial. Ukraine has made a strong commitment to holding Putin accountable for the crime of aggression. With the support of the nations that make up the core group and with the political cornerstone of the Council of Europe, a possible framework for the creation of such a court is currently being developed. Since time is of the essence, this framework must be put in place soon. Here are some important considerations as this process moves forward:

No immunity for the head of state

A central consideration in the prosecution of international crimes is the principle of accountability, which fundamentally challenges the traditional notion of head of state immunity. The prevailing opinion is that no person, regardless of their political position, should be immune from prosecution for gross violations of international law, including a sitting head of state. This perspective is consistent with a growing consensus within the international community. The successful prosecution by an international court of President Charles Taylor of Liberia, a sitting head of state, for international crimes sets an important precedent.

Allowing Putin to evade justice because of his status would not only undermine accountability but also send a disturbing message to other leaders that they may be able to escape the consequences of similar actions. The principle of equality before the law must prevail; Every leader, including Putin, must be held accountable for egregious acts that violate established norms of behavior. Failing to prosecute him would not only undermine trust in international institutions, but would also set a dangerous precedent that could encourage other authoritarian leaders to act without fear of consequences. The United Nations and its Member States must stand firm and hold accountable the Russian Federation’s disregard for the rule of law.

Parallel jurisdiction

The establishment of an internationally created court to prosecute aggression is also based on the principle of concurrent jurisdiction. This principle states that multiple jurisdictions have the authority to prosecute such crimes, reinforcing their universality and the collective responsibility of the international community. Concurrent jurisdiction promotes global cooperation and ensures that acts of aggression do not go unchecked. This allows for the prosecution of leaders in forums closer to the affected states, while preserving the moral and legal authority of international law. This mechanism sends a clear message: aggressive actions will not be tolerated, regardless of their location or context. Furthermore, it increases the credibility of international legal processes by ensuring that those most affected by aggression have a voice in the prosecution of perpetrators.

The UN Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) embodies this principle with its innovative approach to concurrent jurisdiction. The SCSL was established to prosecute those who bear the greatest responsibility for atrocities committed during Sierra Leone’s civil war. The SCSL collaborated with national courts and effectively bridged international and national legal frameworks. This model not only strengthened accountability but also preserved the sovereignty of Sierra Leone’s judiciary by allowing it to handle lower-profile cases. In practice, the SCSL’s concurrent jurisdiction facilitated efficient prosecutions and promoted robust international precedent. It has shown that international and domestic legal systems, when working harmoniously, can comprehensively address complex crimes, deliver justice to victims and strengthen the rule of law.

Court manager with international experience

The effectiveness and credibility of such a court will depend heavily on its leadership. It is crucial that persons appointed to senior positions within this Court (e.g. the Prosecutor, the Chancellor and all its judges) have extensive experience in international law, particularly in deciding issues relating to international law Crime. Leaders with experience of leading previous international tribunals or courts can ensure that proceedings meet the highest standards of justice and fairness. Their expertise will be critical to maintaining the integrity of the Court and promoting trust in its procedures. A court led by experienced professionals can help implement justice against aggression effectively and efficiently and demonstrate fairly and openly the international community’s commitment to upholding the rule of law.

Definition of the crime of aggression

A clear and precise definition of the crime of aggression in the statute of this court is another prerequisite for the establishment of an internationally created court. The definition of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court serves as a reliable and internationally recognized standard for the assessment of such crimes. This definition reflects a long-term consensus among international legal scholars and practitioners and summarizes established principles of international jurisprudence. Any deviation from this definition – such as adopting a nationalist interpretation – could weaken the robustness of international law regarding aggression. Such a shift would lead to abuse and manipulation and disrupt the carefully developed legal frameworks essential to maintaining global order.

Hold leaders accountable now and in the future

The overarching principle of prosecuting executives for aggressive actions is accountability. Ignoring Putin’s aggression in Ukraine would set a dangerous precedent for future international relations. If the international community fails to hold him accountable, it would inadvertently signal to future dictators that they, too, may act with impunity and resort to violence rather than diplomacy to resolve conflicts. This development contradicts the long-standing United Nations paradigm, which emphasizes peaceful dispute resolution and respect for sovereignty. For almost eight decades, the world order has been based on the premise that the rule of law must be stronger than the rule of weapons.

Creating a path to accountability for aggressive actions will serve the dual purpose of promoting a culture of peace and deterring future transgressions. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to take action to prosecute Putin, not just for political reasons, but as an essential measure to strengthen the global legal order. In the face of tyranny, respect for the rule of law must prevail and ensure that the path to a peaceful future is paved by justice, not violence. This persecution of Putin by the international community would not only represent a stance against Putin’s actions, but also serve as a bulwark against future aggressors and reaffirm the international community’s commitment to a just and peaceful world.

David M. Crane is founding chief of the UN Special Tribunal for Sierra Leone and founder of the Global Accountability Network. He is part of a high-level working group drafting the constitution for a multinational court of aggression.