Brexit, for once some facts.

[Woosh]

I'm referring to the International Court of Justice and the silly, easily defended charge against Putin. The most important charge they could have brought under their constitution is the one of Aggression, which neither Putin nor Russia could have defended since they are so clearly guilty.

the charge of agression is not clear cut like the charge of abduction and forced re-education of thousands of Ukrainian children living in the occupied areas.

the charge against Putin is so obviously an expedient illegal misuse of a court for propaganda purposes, a court which itself has no worldwide legitimacy or support.

The ICC is mainly a creation of the EU. It represents our aspiration for world justice and I believe Putin is correctly indicted.

 

[flecc]

the charge of agression is not clear cut like the charge of abduction and forced re-education of thousands of Ukrainian children living in the occupied areas.

Of course the charge of aggression is clear cut in these circumstances, just as it is on our side of guilt.

Putin cannot have been correctly indicted when Russia is not a signatory to the court's creation. That is part of what democracy means.
.

 

[Zlatan]

Of course the charge of aggression is clear cut in these circumstances, just as it is on our side of guilt.

Putin cannot have been correctly indicted when Russia is not a signatory to its creation. That is part of what democracy means.
.

I believe he originally signed agreement but withdrew in 2016,saying he didn't recognise the organisation's jurisdiction. Perhaps he knew better than anyone else way world was going,he had a certain advantage on that score.
As for dismissing Putin's criminal behaviour because others have got away with murder. Two wrongs do not make a right. Blair should have faced prosecution for lying and taking us to war on strength of those lies.
Blair, Putin and Bush should all face judges at Hague. None ever will. Suspect its more a gesture for Russians rather than Putin. He has known from start he is a criminal. Launching Hypersonic missiles onto high rise buildings full of civilians is a criminal act by any body's standards. Its terrorism on an industrial scale.

 

[flecc]

I believe he originally signed agreement but withdrew in 2016,saying he didn't recognise the organisation's jurisdiction.

He was correct, Russia never ratified the agreement and the Court itself agrees. When the Ukraine took Russia to the court in 2022 for genocide, the charge was dismissed.

In their declaration, annexed to the Court's conclusions, they essentially support the Russian interpretation that the ICJ does not have jurisdiction since the issue of concern is one of state recognition and use of force in international law, which do not fall within the scope of the Genocide Convention.
.

 

[Zlatan]

He was correct, Russia never ratified the agreement and the Court itself agrees. When the Ukraine took Russia to the court in 2022 for genocide, the charge was dismissed.

In their declaration, annexed to the Court's conclusions, they essentially support the Russian interpretation that the ICJ does not have jurisdiction since the issue of concern is one of state recognition and use of force in international law, which do not fall within the scope of the Genocide Convention.
.

So that's gives him license to send thousands of Russians to their deaths, similar number of Ukrainian soldiers to theirs defending their homes, destroy and lay waste to massive tracts of land, kill, torture and maim countless civilians and send thousands of children away from their homes in name of re-education.

 

[flecc]

So that's gives him license to send thousands of Russians to their deaths, similar number of Ukrainian soldiers to theirs defending their homes, destroy and lay waste to massive tracts of land, kill, torture and maim countless civilians and send thousands of children away from their homes in name of re-education.

It doesn't give him any licence since I can't see how the ICC court has any real validity. The USA doesn't accept it, indeed the three major world nations, China, the USA and Russia don't accept it.

The ICC complements existing national judicial systems and may exercise its jurisdiction only when national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute criminals. It lacks universal territorial jurisdiction and may only investigate and prosecute crimes committed within member states, crimes committed by nationals of member states, or crimes in situations referred to the Court by the United Nations Security Council.
.

 

[Woosh]

Of course the charge of aggression is clear cut in these circumstances, just as it is on our side of guilt.

a charge of agression requires a resolution of the Security Council.
Russia and China would veto such a move.
A charge of war crimes is much easier to prove as there are plenty of evidence that war crimes have been and still are committed under Putin's orders.

 

[Zlatan]

It doesn't give him any licence since I can't see how the ICC court has any real validity. The USA doesn't accept it, indeed the three major world nations, China, the USA and Russia don't accept it.

The ICC complements existing national judicial systems and may exercise its jurisdiction only when national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute criminals. It lacks universal territorial jurisdiction and may only investigate and prosecute crimes committed within member states, crimes committed by nationals of member states, or crimes in situations referred to the Court by the United Nations Security Council.
.

It's lack of validity, recognition and enforcement obviously gives him free license for him to do as he sees fit. Otherwise, perhaps, he wouldn't have done any of his atrocities. If he knew one day there would be a reckoning, perhaps it would be different. His not recognising authority is irrelevant. I doubt Goring recognised court that hung him.He couldn't have done. Nuremburg Charter wasn't initiated until 1945.Nazis (or Germany) were not consulted about its initiation.
Putin is no different to Nazi regime.

 

[flecc]

a charge of agression requires a resolution of the Security Council.
Russia and China would veto such a move.

Exactly, just as the USA and Britain would veto any attempt to hold them to account for their war crimes.

All underlining the kangaroo court status of the ICC.

It was well meant by the EU and others, but the old truism remains. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Remember, none of this would ever have happened if the USA hadn't opposed Russia's attempt to be a part of Europe after they disbanded the USSR.
.

 

[Zlatan]

Exactly, just as the USA and Britain would veto any attempt to hold them to account for their war crimes.

All underlining the kangaroo court status of the ICC.

It was well meant by the EU and others, but the old truism remains. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Remember, none of this would ever have happened if the USA hadn't opposed Russia's attempt to be a part of Europe after they disbanded the USSR.
.

Yeh, they would probably have invaded Germany instead.

 

[flecc]

Yeh, they would probably have invaded Germany instead.

Hardly, considering Germany was the EU's biggest supporter of agreement with Russia, and still is.
.

 

[Zlatan]

Hardly, considering Germany was the EU's biggest supporter of agreement with Russia, and still is.
.

Like Russia and Germany's none aggression pact of 1939 and their joint invasion of Poland.. Made Stalin think it impossible Hitler would turn on him. So much so he wouldn't believe it even after it had started. Putin would have set that straight. He, s intended something like this since Berlin wall came down. He's wanted USSR and it's satellite states back from the beginning. He' s proved his intentions and capabilities.. He, s also brain washed a nation... and a few others.

 

[Woosh]

Exactly, just as the USA and Britain would veto any attempt to hold them to account for their war crimes.

there is some confusion in your reply. When Ukraine tried to take Russia to the ICC, their complaint was dismissed.
The ICC indicted Putin, not Russia.

 

[flecc]

there is some confusion in your reply. When Ukraine tried to take Russia to the ICC, their complaint was dismissed.
The ICC indicted Putin, not Russia.

I'm illustrating both how ineffective the ICC is and how irrational it's application is. For example:

"Ukraine signed the Rome Statute on 20 January 2000, but due to a 2001 constitutional court ruling declaring the treaty incompatible with Ukraine's constitution, the government has not ratified the Statute. Civil society has been calling on Ukraine to formally join the ICC for many years."

Neither Russia nor Ukraine is party to the ICC, so the court, as ever, goes after a named individual. But no named individual can be tried by the ICC unless they are present in the court so the charge against Putin is pointless and silly.
.

 

[Woosh]

Neither Russia nor Ukraine is party to the ICC, so the court, as ever, goes after a named individual. But no named individual can be tried by the ICC unless they are present in the court so the charge against Putin is pointless and silly.

unless Putin is arrested. Some heads of states have been caught and brought to Court before. Arresting Putin may seem absurd today but not impossible. That will send a message to all the dictators out there.

 

[flecc]

He, s intended something like this since Berlin wall came down.

Impossible, since he was a lowly KGB agent at the time. It was only later that fate, due to Yeltsin successfully opposing Gorbachov, which later brought Putin to light at all. (Berlin Wall came down 1989, Putin became president in 2000).

Without those chance events Putin would now be a grumpy 70 year old retired agent. Russia might well have been politically a part of Europe now, with the EU viewing Ukraine's far right wing as a threat.
.

 

[flecc]

unless Putin is arrested. Some heads of states have been caught and brought to Court before.

Look at their list of names and vulnerability, I have.

Arresting Putin may seem absurd today but not impossible.

It will remain absurd for the following reasons:

Russia has a total ban on extradition of any of its citizens. Tested many times and never failed.

Putin can safely travel countries occupying nearly half of all this planet's land mass. And since his detention can only legally be by a signatory of the ICC, probably more than half. That is why he taunted the West straight after the ICC charge by flying to Crimea where he could be detained, as it is viewed as Ukrainian territory by the ICC.

Realistically he could only be seized illegally, but as an ex agent himself we can be sure he'll be well guarded against that happening.

Just be patient, you might well see the West and even Ukraine in negotiations with Putin.
.

 

[Danidl]

Look at their list of names and vulnerability, I have.



It will remain absurd for the following reasons:

Russia has a total ban on extradition of any of its citizens. Tested many times and never failed.

Putin can safely travel countries occupying nearly half of all this planet's land mass. And since his detention can only legally be by a signatory of the ICC, probably more than half. That is why he taunted the West straight after the ICC charge by flying to Crimea where he could be detained, as it is viewed as Ukrainian territory by the ICC.

Realistically he could only be seized illegally, but as an ex agent himself we can be sure he'll be well guarded against that happening.

Just be patient, you might well see the West and even Ukraine in negotiations with Putin.
.

I have misgivings about indicting a Sitting Head of State , because of it ramifications .A Head of State can only lawfully be present in another country or jurisdiction under Diplomatic Immunity offered by this other country, or as in the case of Crimea, as a Conquerer. If any country v, currently a signature to the ICC were to detain him, it would be an act of war...no less than sinking an aircraft carrier. His luckless and ill named. Head of Child Protection has no such immunity.
Putin would still be entitled to go to the UN HQ in NY to address the UN, under Diplomatic norms.
The indictment is for the Kidnapping of some 16,000 children ..a specific crime listed in the Treaty of Rome and recognised under that treaty by 130 countries . Unfortunately neither China , India ,USA or Russia have signed up to the Treaty ,but the majority of African nations have .
Were his aircraft flying to the UN General Assembly have a malfunction and be required to land at Shannon, ..It would put Ireland in a very invidious position . The ICC warrant is valid,,but Heads of States, which share diplomatic relations , are immune from arrest.

 

[flecc]

Were his aircraft flying to the UN General Assembly have a malfunction and be required to land at Shannon, ..It would put Ireland in a very invidious position . The ICC warrant is valid,,but Heads of States, which share diplomatic relations , are immune from arrest.

But of course he won't always be head of the Russian state, unless he dies in office.

Probably academic though, since even in retirement he would have no need to leave Russia and its protection, given its vast range of environments and options open to a wealthy ex president.
.

 

[Woosh]

Realistically he could only be seized illegally, but as an ex agent himself we can be sure he'll be well guarded against that happening.

Just be patient, you might well see the West and even Ukraine in negotiations with Putin.

Leaders come and go, even dictators. Putin will need a bunch of bodyguards around him for the rest of his life.