On February 27, 2014, Russian occupied the Crimea on the grounds of protection of ethnic Russians. 8 years later, almost to the day, Russia launch a ful-scale invasion of the sovereign country of Ukriane. The claim this time was that neo-Nazis were in control of the governement who had to be stopped in order to protect Russia’s own soveriegnty. Both claims were made to avoid accusations of launching an aggressive war.
Why would Russia wish to avoid accusations of launching an aggressive war? One of the final acts of World War II was to try the major power players of Nazi Germany at an international tribunal (Nuremberg Trial). This tribunal charged them with four crimes - Count One - The Common Plan or Conspiracy (to take control of the German government and wage war); Count Two - Crimes Against Peace (the waging of aggressive war); Count Three - War Crimes (mistreatment of POWs and other violations of the accepted laws of war); Count Four — Crimes Against Humanity (the Holocaust and other atrocities).[ Indictment of the International Military Tribunal] For Count Two, the Nazis stood accused of waging aggressive war in violation of Treaties, Conventions aimed to ending aggressive war and ensuring peaceful settlement of disputes, along with assurances of peace.[ Id.] Collectively these will be referred to as Treaties, except when referring to a specific Treaty, Convention or Assurance.
Nazi Germany made much the same claims as Russia is currently making right before the Nazis invaded several countries. Hitle claimed that Germany required lebensraum for the German people and protection of the same. The parallels are clear between Germany’s treatment of the former Czechoslovakia[ Now the nations of the Czech Republic and Slovakia] and Rusia’s actions towards Ukraine. The Crimea is the 21st Century’s Sudetenland. In 1938, the world actively helped Germany break off a chunk of Czechoslovakia believing it would ensure “peace in our time.[ Neville Chamberlain upon his return from the Munich Conference, October 1938. War would break out 11 months later.]” In 2014, there was no “Odessa” conference. The world merely looked the other way while Russia seized a chunk of Ukraine. There was some tut-tutting, but that was the extent of it. Then, in 2022, just like Germany seizing the remainder of Czechoslovakia (Bohemia and Moravia), Russia launched an all out offensive on the remainder of Ukraine. It remains to be seen the outcome of that war.
One accusation leveled at the Nuremberg Trial was that of “Victor’s Justice.” Then, due to a switch in sides, Russia sat in judgment of Germany. If Russia loses the war in Ukraine, it would be the nation in the dock, facing vioilations of much the same Treaties as the Nazis did. Presumably the International Criminal Court, created not just as a result of Nuremberg, but also due to the war in the former Yugoslavia and the genocide in Rwanda, avoids the prime accusation as it would be neutral judges deciding. However, Russia is not a signatory to the ICC. Russia stated in 2016 — two years after grabbing the Crimea — that it would definitely not become a signatory.
This then raises the question of who would try the Russian crimes against peace? The United Nations could call for an ad hoc tribunal as was done with both the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Such a tribunal would require Security Council approval. This idea is a non-starter because any member can veto a Security Council resolution. You guessed it. Russia sits on the Security Council. Part of the spoils of managing to be on the winning side in World War II. This is an even bigger problem than Russians being one of the judges and one of the prosecutors. Then the prosecution insisted on trying Germans for crimes the Russians themselves committed — and knew they had committed. The issue of even having a court to try Russia, let alone get Putin and his oligarchs into custody is one that must be resolved. The other issue to be resolved is the basis of any charges for fighting an aggressive war against Ukraine.[ Or anyone else Russia may invade before this completed work is published.]T
This work examines the Treaties used in Charge Two to establish whether they were valid law at the time of the Nuremberg Trials. It is clear from the list of Treaties cited that the prosecution overcharged. However, how the Charge could have been narrowed for a more solid outcome will also be explained. 80 years later will a tribunal holding Russia accountable do better? This work will also examine which Treaties could be used against Russia today. It will only examine Charge 2. Russia’s war crimes and crimes against humanity it is committing, has committed or may commit against Ukraine is left for another day.