Netherlands confirms it will host Nuremberg-style tribunal for Russia
(kyivindependent.com)
EuropeTrump will put everybody involved on a list to protect his Russian buddies.
This is coming from the same guy - Jette - who promised during the election to build 10 new cities. In reality, no one can buy an electric stove or heat pump anymore because the infrastructure is at capacity. The same guy that introduced kilometer charge for trucks so they should go electric. Except it takes between 5 and 6 years!!! for a trucking company to get a single charger installed.
But no... Nuremberg style trial in the Netherlands that is never, ever going to take place, that is important. No wonder my birth country is fucked. It started with Rutte: Trump's fleshlight.
If you want a 'start', I think it's Lubbers. Privatised a ton of shit, which continued later on with child subsidy being cut down on, and privatisation of stuff in the Illness Law.
The bullet always comes from the right-wing oligarchs.
And for Israel, right? Right?..
Israel probably doesn't need a tribunal. Not because they didn't commit war crimes or anything like that, but because this tribunal exists for one very specific reason.
When you read "Nuremberg-style tribunal" you probably thought "crimes so bad they had to create a new court for them" but that's not really the case. Because after the Nuremberg trials the international community set up the international courts in The Hague to deal with crimes against humanity. Unfortunately they made a mistake. They forgot to include one crime in the jurisdiction of the courts. So, to prosecute this specific crime they need an additional court, while all other crimes will be judged by the existing ICC and ICJ.
The crime in question is "aggression", basically the "crime of starting a war without provocation". And that's a lot easier to prove for Russia than for Israel, where the conflict includes other parties that also acted militarily.
And the US..
There is pretty much zero chance of Israel losing or collapsing any time soon, so probably not. A country needs to be thoroughly defeated for Nuremberg style trials to happen.
Until the capital of russia is captured and leaders of regime captured as PoW the possible tribunal will worth same as previous international court rulings
Yes, but diplomatically the commitment itself is a big deal.
So now the easiest step left to actually capture people responsible for military aggression and local genocides to bring them to justice
If you look at Yugoslavia and Slobodan Milošević and Ratko Mladić, it can work without a full capture of the aggressor. Lets hope it goes somewhat like back then.
For everyone wondering: It makes sense to host suche a tribunal in a country outside of Russia. Yes, it only makes sense if the regime falls. When the regime falls, it offers the ability to get rid of the old guard of the old regime. You do not need to deal with him yourself and a trial in Russia will not galvanize his remaining supporters against you. You will also not have the old guard still in the background trying to sabotage you. Arrest them, send them to the netherlands and they will manage the rest.
Russia has a full list of tu quoque arguments. What are they going to do about it?
The charter did not recognize a tu quoque defense—asking for exoneration on the grounds that the Allies had committed the same crimes with which the defendants were charged.
Fleet admiral Chester W. Nimitz testified that the United States Navy had also used unrestricted submarine warfare against Japan in the Pacific; Dönitz's counsel successfully argued that this meant that it could not be a crime.[183][184] The judges barred most evidence on Allied misdeeds from being heard in court.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque_defense
The obvious answer is for the law to apply equally to each party. I'd be utterly fine with America paying for its past crimes.
Good! But why The Netherlands, why not The International Court in The Hague? That is it's own entity, why can the court not host it's own tribunal?
If you read the article you'd know that they specifically chose The Netherlands because the The Hague is in The Netherlands..
The Netherlands was the only country to offer to host the court, and it was presumed to be the correct place in which to hold proceedings, given The Hague also hosts the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice.
This is the exact passage which prompted my question. Why the Netherlands and why not the ICC? The recent case of Duterte, the former president of the Philipines, was hosted by the Court, not by the Netherlands. Why would this case be different? Or do the Netherlands speak for the Court and can they extend hosting in the Court's name?
Why the Netherlands and why not the ICC?
On 24 February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine. Whilst the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutes crimes under international law such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and the crime of aggression, the ICC generally has no jurisdiction if neither the attacking nor the attacked state is a party to the Rome Statute. [1] In February 2022, neither Russia nor Ukraine was a member of the ICC in The Hague.[2] It was only after the invasion that Ukraine acceded to the Rome Statute and became a member of the ICC on 1 January 2025. [3]
In the context of the conflict in eastern Ukraine, Ukraine – as a non-member – had granted the Court jurisdiction for limited periods on the basis of Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute. The second declaration of this jurisdiction is valid for an indefinite period and thus also covers acts committed from 24 February 2022 onwards. [4] However, this declaration does not grant the International Criminal Court jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. The Rome Statute prohibits the International Criminal Court from prosecuting this crime if it was committed by nationals of, or on the territory of, a non-State Party (Article 12 up to (5)) or if jurisdiction has not been previously conferred by the UN Security Council (Article 15).[5]
With Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, one member of the Council of Europe has attacked another. [6]
However, under the principle of state immunity applicable under international law, the Russian leadership – comprising President Vladimir Putin, Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov – cannot be prosecuted before the courts of other states, such as those of Ukraine, at least whilst they remain in office.[7][2] This immunity does not, however, apply before international courts, as these exercise the punitive powers of the international community. [2] As a corresponding resolution by the UN General Assembly is unlikely to secure a majority, but a regional exception to immunity for the crime of aggression appears to be emerging in Europe, and the vast majority of Council of Europe members – including Ukraine and Russia – criminalise wars of aggression in their national laws, a European tribunal could override the defendants’ immunity.[2]
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sondertribunal_f%C3%BCr_das_Verbrechen_der_Aggression_gegen_die_Ukraine (translated using DeepL)
While most of Russia's war crimes can be prosecuted in other courts, there is no legal entity authorized to rule on the crime of aggression — first coined to prosecute the Nazis for World War II — which means a dedicated tribunal needed to be established.
That explains. Curious that the ICC is not authorized to rule on "crime of aggression".
Why Nederland? Kyiv would be a more logical place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court
It's not the ICC (by the UN) who has jurisdiction, but a special tribunal by the Council of Europe. It just "happens" to be located in The Hague too.
These kinds of things happen at the Hague generally
As, of course, it's tradition.
Logically it would be Saint Petersburg if it should mirror the Nuremberg trials.
Rostov, cause it's where the Yanukovich fled in 2014, after which russia started the war. Would be a symbolism that they surely wouldn't miss.
