© Getty Images Mammadov underscores that this will create an opening for global impunity.
According to Gunduz Mammadov, the former Deputy Prosecutor General of Ukraine, Russia endeavors to shirk accountability for its offenses in Ukraine, experiencing partial headway in this regard, as expressed in his article for The Economist.
“For much of the past several months, I have resided in a trench near Pokrovsk, closely observing our valiant defense of the city. In such circumstances, survival takes precedence. We endure casualties, far too many. We manage three hours of sleep daily. Time for contemplation is scarce. Nevertheless, my thoughts persistently revolve around my previous role, specifically, how the global justice framework is faltering,” he articulates.
Mammadov stresses that the stipulation in the “Trump plan” concerning “complete amnesty for wartime deeds,” where all factions “concur to abstain from lodging claims or resolving grievances,” if implemented, would solidify impunity and destabilize the groundwork of the worldwide legal structure.
He mentioned that since 2016, he has been devoted to amassing proof of Russian war atrocities in Ukraine (in 2016, Gundyuz Mammadov established the War Crimes Department, tasked with the organized probing of international offenses in Ukraine), but all the compiled evidence of transgressions will be inconsequential without a legitimate criminal proceeding to support it.
“Historical accounts indicate that justice often favors the influential, or more accurately, the victorious. Following World War II, the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals appeared to offer a widespread assurance: law can supersede violence. However, this commitment has since been selectively enforced. From Cambodia to Rwanda, from Srebrenica to Syria, justice has arrived belatedly, been constrained, or has been entirely absent,” the jurist highlighted.
Mammadov pens that the International Criminal Court has frequently been “ineffectual, overly cautious in probing cases involving powerful nations,” and Russia has become adept at exploiting this deficiency as leverage.
“International jurisprudence is disintegrating. Vladimir Putin is permitted to flout arrest orders issued by the ICC by journeying to various international capitals, including Ulaanbaatar and Dushanbe. The very notion that a head of state, subject to arrest, can travel unhindered serves as evidence that deterrence is no longer effective,” the advocate emphasizes.
Mammadov pointed out that Ukraine’s proposed special tribunal to investigate the crime of aggression is based on moral correctness rather than legal soundness, as a victim-initiated tribunal in the real world can easily be dismissed as biased. However, scant legal experts deem that the matter of immunity for Putin or other high-ranking Russian individuals can be surmounted.
“We seek justice, not retribution. A dependable global mechanism to facilitate this is complex. Though, conceivably the optimal approach would involve empowering the International Criminal Court to adjudicate the crime of aggression. Concerning Russia’s incursion into Ukraine, the court is unable to deliberate on this fundamental offense due to structural confines, notably Russia’s non-participation in the Rome Statute.
The Kremlin grasps the magnitude. Throughout negotiations , it has consistently pressed for Ukraine to relinquish all legal claims against Russia. Irrespective of the allure for our politicians to expedite a resolution, it would constitute a grave misstep. Permitting offenders to evade accountability will only spawn further transgressions. Such is the lesson gleaned from the interwar period,” Mammadov depicts the extent of the dilemma.
He emphasized that Russia’s war in Ukraine serves as a litmus test for the international legal framework, since if such offenses remain unpunished, it would imply authorization for the forcible redrawing of boundaries.
Nevertheless, Ukraine will be unable to independently rectify this predicament, necessitating the backing of the West, given that proclaimed principles only hold sway when anchored in virtues.
Trump’s proposed 28-point “peace plan” incorporates a segment addressing amnesty for all entities implicated in wartime actions, thereby eliminating the prospect of legal recourse. As per ZM, this provision was purportedly suggested by the Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council Rustem Umerov, superseding a stipulation concerning the auditing of all international assistance to Ukraine, although he himself refutes this.
