The Attempt to Universalise Domestic Jurisdictions: International Criminal Justice and Russia

INTRODUCTION. Over the past two decades, the Western bloc has intensified pressure on Russian Federation through attempts to expand its area of influence as well as to interfere in the domestic affairs of Eastern Europe countries. Russia's response to what it perceives as a threat to its interests has been met with recourse to all available means, including international criminal justice. This paper proposes the identification of legal proceedings brought in the last decade before the International Criminal Court and critically examines the possibility of triggering domestic jurisdictions against Russian or Ukrainian citizens associated with Russia, in order to assess the legality of the ongoing actions and the solutions that international law presents.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. This paper first gives a brief overview of international justice cases started in the last decade against the Russian Federation and persons allegedly associated to Russian interests. It will then go on to focus the analysis exclusively on international criminal justice aspects, which are of interest because of the potential friction they may cause for international peace and security. Highlighting previous international courts decisions as well as the evolution of customary law, the fourth chapter is concerned with the activity of the International Criminal Court worldwide and the attempts made by the Western bloc to expand the jurisdiction of the Hague-based court in order to increase pressure over countries out of Western countries sphere of influence. After an inroad into the particular features and dangers of the principle of universal jurisdiction, the last two sections will explore the peaceful means to settle international disputes as well as the final thoughts on the main focus of this study.

RESEARCH RESULTS. Having in mind customary international law, the inherent nature of treaty law and decisions derived from international judicial bodies, campaigns launched against the Russian Federation before criminal courts, regardless of whether they are national courts or they have an international mandate resulting from international treaties, are more able to aggravate the tension between Russia and the Western bloc than to settle any specific dispute between these two sides.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. The results in this paper indicate that any unilateral attempt developed by a State or a group of States to pursue a campaign against third States and persons outside the UN environment in order to bring any of them to face justice under a specific group of States’ values and principles is deemed unlawful. Therefore, such State or group of States are only able to settle disputes through options that are less likely to increase the level of threat against international peace and security.

1. Ambos K. Treatise on International Criminal Law. Vol. II: The Crimes and Sentencing.. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2014. 448 p.

2. Baptista E.C. Direito Internacional Público. Vol. 1.: Conceito e Fontes. Lisbon: AAFDL. 1998. 626 p.

3. Baptista E.C. Ius Cogens em Direito Internacional. Lisbon: Lex. 1997.604 p.

4. Bassiouni M.C. International Criminal Law. Vol. I.: Sources, Subjects, and Contents 3rd ed. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 2008. 1126 p.

5. Bassiouni M.C. Introduction to International Criminal Law. 2nd ed. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 2013. 1260 P.

6. Bassiouni M.C. The ICC’s Twelfth Anniversary Crisis: Growing Pains or Institutional Deficiency?. – Promoting Accountability under International Law for Gross Human Rights Violations in Africa – Essays in Honor of Prosecutor Hassan Bubacar Jallow. Ed. by. C.C. Jalloh, A.B.M. Marong. Leiden; Boston: Brill; Nijhoff. 2015. P. 91- 102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004271753_009

7. Benavides L. The Universal Jurisdiction Principle: Nature and Scope. – Anuario Mexicano de Derecho Internacional. 2001. Vol. I. P. 19-96.

8. Bloxham D. Beyond ‘Realism’ and Legalism: A Historical Perspective on the Limits of International Humanitarian Law – European Review. 2006. Vol. 14. Issue 4. P. 457-470. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1062798706000482.

9. Cassese A. International Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2003. 472 p.

10. Chow P.Y.S. On Obligations Erga Omnes Partes. – Georgetown Journal of International Law. 2021. Vol. 52. P. 469-504.

11. Christenson G.A. Jus Cogens: Guarding Interests Fundamental to International Society. – Virginia Journal of International Law. 1998. Vol. 28. Issue 3. P. 585-648.

12. Direitos Humanos e Estado de Direito – protecção no quadro europeu e internacional. Ed. by M.L. Duarte, A.R. Gil, T.F. Freitas. Lisbon: AAFDL. 2022. 918 p.

13. Domestici-Met M.-J. Cent ans après La Haye, cinquante ans après Genève: le droit international humanitaire au temps de la guerre civile. – Revue Internationale de la Croix-Rouge. 1999. Vol. 81. No. 834. P. 277-301

14. Dugard J. Palestine and the International Criminal Court: Institutional Failure or Bias?. – Journal of International Criminal Justice. Vol. 11. Issue 3. 2013. P. 563-570. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqt025.

15. Dupuy P.-M. Reviewing the Difficulties of Codification: On Ago’s Classification of Obligations of Means and Obligations of Result in Relation to State. – European Journal of International Law. 1999. Vol. 10. Issue 2. P. 371-385. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/10.2.371.

16. Escarameia P. O Direito Internacional Público nos Princípios do Século XXI. Coimbra: Almedina. 2003. 348 p.

17. Gaja G. Jus Cogens Beyond the Vienna Convention. – Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law. Vol. 172. No. III. Leiden; Boston: Brill; Nijhoff. 1981. P. 279-289. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1875-8096_pplrdc_A9789024727780_03.

18. Gouveia J.B. Direito Internacional penal – Uma Perspectiva Dogmático-Crítica. Coimbra: Almedina. 2008. 528 p.

19. Guerreiro A. A Ingerência Interestatal no Quadro do Direito Internacional Público. Coimbra: Almedina. 2021. 444 p.

20. Guerreiro A. A Resistência dos Estados Africanos à Jurisdição do Tribunal Penal Internacional. Coimbra: Almedina. 2012. 148 p.

21. Guerreiro A. The legal status of the principle of non-intervention. – Moscow Journal of International Law. 2022. No.1. P. 6-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24833/0869-0049-2022-1-6-26.

22. Guilfoyle D. SS Lotus (France v Turkey) (1927). – Landmark Cases in Public International Law. Ed. by E. Bjorge, C. Miles. USA: Hart Publishing. 2017. P. 89-110.

23. International Law. Ed. by M.D. Evans. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2003. 896 p.

24. Iontcheva Turner J. Defence Perspectives on Fairness and Efficiency at the International Criminal Court. – The Oxford Handbook of International Criminal Law. Ed. by K.J. Heller [et al.]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2020. P. 39-68.

25. Klabbers J. The changing image of international organizations. – The legitimacy of international organizations. Ed. by J.-M. Coicaud, V. Heiskanen. Tokyo: United Nations University Press. 2001. P. 221-255.

26. Ku J., Nzelibe J. Do International Criminal Tribunals Deter or Exacerbate Humanitarian Atrocities?. – Washington University Law Review. 2006. Vol. 84. Issue 4. P. 777- 833.

27. Lusa B.F. General international law in the relations between international organizations and their members. – Leiden Journal of International Law. 2019. Vol. 32. Issue 4. P. 653-673. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156519000347.

28. Meron T. The Humanization of International Law. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 2006. 551 p.

29. Mills A. Rethinking Jurisdiction in International Law. – British Yearbook of International Law. 2014. Vol. 84. Issue 1. P. 187-239. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bybil/bru003.

30. Morris M.H. Universal Jurisdiction in a Divided World: Conference Remarks. – New England Law Review. 2001. Vol. 35. P. 337-361.

31. O’Sullivan A. Universal Jurisdiction in International Criminal Law: The Debate and the Battle for Hegemony. United Kingdom: Routledge. 2017. 243 p.

32. Paulus A. Whether Universal Values can Prevail over Bilateralism and Reciprocity. – Realizing Utopia: The Future of International Law. Ed. by A. Cassese. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2012. P. 89-104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199691661.003.0008

33. Pedretti R. Immunity of Heads of State and State Officials for International Crimes. Leiden: Brill Nijhoff. 2015. 488 p.

34. Plesch D., Sattler S. Before Nuremberg: Considering the Work of the United Nations War Crimes Commission of 1943-1948. – Historical Origins of International Criminal Law. Vol. I. Ed. by M. Bergsmo, C.W. Ling, Y.Ping. Brussels: Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher. 2014. P. 437-474.

35. Proelss A. Article 34. – Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: a Commentary. 2nd. ed. Ed. by O. Dörr, K. Schmalenbach. Berlin: Springer. 2018. P. 655-698.

36. Sayapin S. The Implementation of Crimes Against Peace and Security of Mankind in the Penal Legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan. – Asian Journal of International Law. 2020. Vol. 10. Issue 1. P. 1-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S2044251319000110

37. Scharf M.P. The ICC’s Jurisdiction Over the Nationals of Non-Party States: A Critique of the U.S. Position. – The United States and the International Criminal Court: National Security and International Law. Ed. by S.B. Sewall, C. Kaysen. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. 2000. P. 213-236/

38. Schmalenbach K. Acts of International Organizations as Extraneous Material for Treaty Interpretation. – Netherlands International Law Review. 2022. Vol. 69. P. 271-293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-022-00224-y.

39. Schmitt B. Foreword. – The International Criminal Court in Turbulent Times. Ed. by G. Werle, A. Zimmermann. Berlin: Springer. 2019. P. V-XI.

40. Skuratova A.Y. Rossiya i Rimskii statut Mezhdunarodnogo ugolovnogo suda [Russia and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court]. – Moscow Journal of International Law. 2016. No. 4. P. 125-137. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.24833/0869-0049-2016-4-125-137.

41. Stahn C. A Critical Introduction to International Criminal Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2019. 468 p. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/9781108399906

42. The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary. Vol.1. Ed. by B. Simma [et al.]. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2012. 2000 p. DOI: 10.1093/law/9780199639762.001.0001

43. The Legislative History of the International Criminal Court. Ed. by M.C. Bassiouni, W.A. Schabas. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill. 2016. 1624 p.

44. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary. Ed. by A. Cassese, P. Gaeta, J.R.W.D. Jones. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2002. 2018 p.

45. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary. Ed. by O. Triffterer, K. Ambos. 3rd. ed. Munich; Oxford; Baden-Baden: C. H. Beck;Hart;Nomos. 2016. 2000 p.

46. Werner W. The never-ending closure: constitutionalism and international law. – Transnational Constitutionalism: International and European Perspectives. Ed. by N. Tsagourias. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2007. P. 329-367. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511495076.012

47. Wet E. de. Jus cogens and obligations erga omnes. – The Oxford Handbook of International Human Rights Law. Ed. by. D. Shelton. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2013. P. 541-561. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780199640133.003.0024

48. Williams S.A. The Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court – Universal Jurisdiction or State Consent – To Make or Break the Package Deal. – International Law Studies. 2000. Vol. 75. P. 539-563.

49. Yastrebova A.Yu. Otdel'nye podkhody k sisteme spetsial'nykh printsipov mezhdunarodnogo gumanitarnogo prava: soderzhanie i evolyutsiya [Particular approaches to the system of international humanitarian law special principles: substance and evolution]. – Moscow Journal of International Law. 2022. No.3. P. 6-18. (In Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.24833/0869-0049-2022-3-6-18.

50. Zhu D. China and the International Criminal Court. Singapore: Palgrave. 2018. 298 p