By Erika Suhr

Picture: Globe License: Public Domain

A Rocky Start

At the start of 2017, the International Criminal Court (ICC) seemed to be experiencing an existential moment. Russia had withdrawn itself from the process of ratifying the Rome Statute internally in protest of the ICC’s ruling that Russia’s 2014 takeover of the Crimea peninsula had been an armed conflict between it and Ukraine, making the annexation fall under the court’s jurisdiction. In January, a non-binding African Union resolution called for its members to withdraw en masse from the ICC, with some countries arguing that the ICC, beyond subverting their sovereignty, disproportionately targets African countries. The African Union supports instead, a regionalization of international law, where there would be a war crimes court, specifically devoted to Africa. Opponents worry about the independence of such a court, and that the risk of violations of war crimes in African states would rise as a result. The Foreign Minister of Nigeria noted the vital role that the ICC plays in holding leaders accountable, and stated that Senegal, Cape Verde, and other countries would speak out against the resolution to withdraw.

Burundi Withdrawal

Burundi, The Gambia, and South Africa all decided to withdraw from the ICC, but ultimately, only Burundi carried out its threat. The Gambia, under new leadership, announced its reversal of the decision to withdraw on state television, citing its “commitment to the principles enshrined in the Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court”. South Africa also revoked its decision to withdraw from the ICC, citing a recent court ruling that declared the withdrawal “unconstitutional and invalid.”

On October 27, 2017 Burundi, a year after declaring its intentions, became the first country to withdraw from the International Criminal Court.  The timing of Burundi’s withdrawal coincides with a report released by the United Nations Commission of Inquiry. The report recommended that a criminal investigation on crimes committed in Burundi be initiated in response to evidence of torture, sexual violence, extrajudicial killings, disappearances, and illegitimate arrests and detentions sponsored by the regime of Burundi’s president, Pierre Nkurunziza.

A Reinvigorated Court

Perhaps as a response to the criticism of the African Union and others, the ICC’s prosecutor has publicized a shift away from Africa towards other regions. She announced that she is opening preliminary investigations into crimes perpetuated in the Philippines, Afghanistan, and Venezuela. The Philippines probe will focus on allegations reaching back to July of 2016, relating to the government’s war on drugs, which has since killed thousands of people, many under dubious circumstances and justifications. The Venezuelan probe will likewise focus on government and police forces, in that case, that the government forces “frequently used excessive force to disperse and put down demonstrations,” and tortured and abused members of the opposition who were unlawfully detained by the government, indefinitely.

Most controversially, the prosecutor called upon the court to open an investigation into war crimes and crimes against humanity in Afghanistan. The scope of that investigation could encompass U.S. troops. No specific parties or events have been named, but a report released by the prosecutor’s office says that there is a reasonable basis to believe that the following crimes have been committed:

• "Crimes against humanity and war crimes by the Taliban and their affiliated Haqqani Network;
• "War crimes of torture and related ill-treatment by Afghan government forces, in particular the intelligence agency (National Directorate for Security), and the Afghan National Police;
• "War crimes of torture and related ill-treatment, by US military forces deployed to Afghanistan and in secret detention facilities operated by the Central Intelligence Agency, principally in the 2003-2004 period, although allegedly continuing in some cases until 2014."

Read More

April 02, 2018

By Stacy Closson*

Russian premier Vladimir Putin (right) and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping (center), have both resorted to paradoxical applications of international law.
Photo: www.kremlin.ru

China and Russia judge territorial integrity of a sovereign state to rule supreme: as Permanent-5 members of the United Nations they block uses of force under Chapter VII of the Charter in most cases.  Yet in their regions, sovereign lines are blurred, as evidenced by Russia’s takeover of Ukraine’s Crimea and China’s building of artificial islets over uninhabited reefs in disputed jurisdictions.  This conflicting—and paradoxical—use of international law by China and Russia has remained largely unchallenged, as regional states have been too weak militarily and economically to challenge them.  However, recent decisions by regional states to turn to international law could have serious consequences for these two powers. 

On China, an arbitral tribunal in The Hague held that it has jurisdiction over key issues in the Philippines’ dispute against China over its South China Sea claims.  It will be difficult for China to ignore this case, as both it and the Philippines are parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and the former is asserting its right to exploit the 200-nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone.

This decision could affect disputes with other states with overlapping claims in the sea over issues of maritime routes, oil and gas deposits, and fisheries. Vietnam is considering filing a similar suit.  Taiwan, on the other hand, issued a statement that it did not recognize the court’s ruling, asserting its rightful claim to islands under dispute in the South China Sea.  However, the Taiwanese government did say that it remained opened to working with other parties to ensure peace and stability.  

On Russia, Ukraine has just announced that its national oil and gas company, Naftohaz Ukrainy, plans to sue Russia over the assets lost in Crimea’s Black Sea and the Sea of Azov.  The takeover of Crimea has put production sharing agreements that the Ukrainian government had previously signed with Italy’s Eni and ExxonMobil on hold.  Meanwhile, the Government of Ukraine is pursuing an action against Russia over Crimea at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). 

Both China and Russia have issued statements that they do not view these international courts in these particular cases to have a say in their sovereign affairs. Russia’s constitutional court ruled that Russia is not obliged to obey ECHR verdicts.  China released a position paper arguing that the Philippines’ maritime delineation claims were merely territorial sovereignty claims and therefore the UNCLOS tribunal has no jurisdiction. 

It is unclear what would push China and Russia to obey ultimate findings of an international court.  Reputational losses seem not to have hindered either’s moves up to this point.  Friendly relations with neighbors also do not seem to be a priority.  Pressure from the United States remains on both countries to reverse recent territorial grabs to no avail, despite the most severe sanctions placed on Russia since the Cold War.

*Dr. Stacy Closson, Global Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Kennan Institute; Assistant Professor at the University of Kentucky’s Patterson School of Diplomacy & International Commerce

Read More

April 14, 2016

By Ena Cefo

Since the Russian occupation of Crimea began in February 2014, the U.N.’s monitoring mission and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe identified numerous human rights violations: abductions, unlawful detentions, and forced disappearances. Over the past year, human rights on the peninsula have deteriorated further and Human Rights Watch documented extensive intimidation and harassment of occupation criticizers, Crimean Tatars, activists and journalists. Crimean residents were forced to take up Russian citizenship; minorities or others who refused to become Russian citizens lost the right to continue residing on the peninsula, the right to free medical care, the right to register property and the right to be admitted to school or work. Acknowledging the continuing demise of minority rights during the past year, on March 16th, 2015, the U.S. Department of State called on Russia to end the brutalities and announced its intentions to continue the U.S.-imposed sanctions until Russia withdraws from the occupation.

Read More

April 08, 2015

By Sam Obenhaus

NATO-Ukraine Commission session in Brussels |
U.S. Department of State on Flickr 

Money flows quickly.  It has no morals and tends to have a very short memory.  In the case of great powers, it’s tentacles also bind economies together in ways that are hard to define and even harder to untangle.

This last trait has, of course, been a tremendous benefit of expanding trade and interdependence since the latter half of the 20^th century.  Global trade, some like to say, is now “too big to fail.”  The interconnectedness it created pacified Europe, the most violent continent for the majority of recent history, and this is not about to change.  World War III, or even another Cold War, is not around the corner.

But has the deterrence of large-scale conflict come at the expense of reducing the expected costs associated with moderate acts of aggression?  This is the hypothesis Russian President Vladimir Put is testing in Crimea and maybe soon in Eastern Ukraine.

Read More

April 04, 2014

By Abraham Shanedling

 

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said that Hungary is against the European Union imposing sanctions on Russia over its invasion of Crimea.

 

In an interview with Vilaggazdasag newspaper, Orban said that economic sanctions are “not in the interests of either Europe, or much less Hungary.”

 

The comments are not surprising given that Russia is Hungary’s largest trading partner, with Hungary relying on Russia for the vast majority of its natural gas. Hungary also recently signed a 10 billion Europe deal with Russia to expand Hungary’s nuclear plant.

 

Reuters has more on the story.

Read More

April 02, 2014

By Abraham Shanedling

 

The World Bank has indicated that Russia’s economy could drop by 1.8 percent if the standoff in Ukraine continues and the resulting U.S. and European sanctions stay in place or intensify.

 

Although Russian leaders in the Kremlin have downplayed the impact of the sanctions, economists say that investors have pulled about $70 billion from Russia’s economy since the crisis began. Prices for food and imported items have already risen, and some Russians are reportedly having problems tapping into funds at banks designated by U.S. and European sanctions.

 

Russia’s already weak economy plus the threat of more sanctions even prompted Standard an Poor’s rating agency to change its rating of the situation from “stable” to “negative.”

Voice of America has more on the story.

Read More

April 01, 2014

By Katie Bacharach

Marc Weller, Professor of International Law at the University of Cambridge, has written an analysis of the legal issues raised by Russia’s intervention in Crimea for BBC. The analysis works through several possible legal arguments and concludes that the event violates international law under each of them. It is definitely a piece worth checking out.

Read More

March 28, 2014

By Abraham Shanedling

Russian President Valdimir Putin meets with
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in January 2014.
(Photo courtesy of The Iran Project)

A sanctions tit-for-tat battle is quickly emerging between Moscow and the Western powers in light of Russia’s annexation of the Crimean Peninsula.

So far the United States and the European Union have implemented asset freezes and visa restrictions against 28 Russian and Ukrainian officials, including several close advisers to Russian President Vladimir Putin, accused of involvement in the seizure of Crimea.

Moments after President Obama announced expanded sanctions on Russian financial services, energy, mining and engineering sectors, Putin hit back with his own round of sanctions, targeting certain White House officials and Members of Congress.

Most of the named U.S. officials, now blocked from entering Russia, have not expressed severe concern. “I guess that means my spring break in Siberia is off, my Gazprom stock is lost, and my secret bank account in Moscow is frozen,” said Senator John McCain, who had recently returned from a trip to Kiev and was included on Putin’s list.

Members of Congress may not be taking the Kremlin’s response seriously right now. But this all may change.

Read More

March 26, 2014