


Who is a ‘war criminal,’ legally speaking?
Applying the label to Russia’s Putin may be justifiable, but seeking a formal designation is a complicated process.

The term applies to anyone who violates a set of rules adopted by world leaders known as the law of armed conflict. The rules govern how countries behave in times of war.
Those rules have been modified and expanded over the last century, drawn from the Geneva Convention in the aftermath of World War II and protocols added later.
The rules are aimed at protecting people not taking part in fighting and those who can no longer fight, including civilians such as doctors and nurses, wounded troops and prisoners of war. Treaties and protocols lay out who can be targeted and with what weapons. Certain weapons are prohibited, including chemical or biological agents.
The so-called grave breaches of the convention that amount to war crimes include willful killing and extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity. Other war crimes include deliberately targeting civilians, using disproportionate force, using human shields and taking hostages.
The International Criminal Court also prosecutes crimes against humanity committed in the context of “a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population.” These include murder, extermination, forcible transfer, torture, rape and sexual slavery.
The most likely way that Putin could face prosecution as a war criminal is through the widely recognized legal doctrine of command responsibility. If commanders order or know or are in a position to know about crimes and do nothing to prevent them, they can be held legally responsible.
Generally, there are four paths to investigate and determine war crimes, though each has limits. One is through the International Criminal Court.
A second option would be if the U.N. turns its work on the inquiry commission over to a hybrid international war crimes tribunal to prosecute Putin.
A third would be the creation of a tribunal or court to try Putin by a group of interested or concerned parties, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the European Union and the U.S. The military tribunals at Nuremberg after World War II against Nazi leaders are an example.
Finally, some countries have their own laws for prosecuting war crimes. Germany, for example, is already investigating Putin. The U.S. doesn’t have such a law, but the Justice Department has a special section that focuses on acts including international genocide, torture, recruitment of child soldiers and female genital mutilation.
It’s unclear. Russia does not recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and would not send any suspects to the court’s headquarters in The Hague. The U.S. does not recognize the authority of the court either. Putin could be tried in a country chosen by the U.N. or by the consortium of concerned nations. But getting him there would be difficult.
Yes. From the post-World War II tribunals in Nuremberg and Tokyo to more recent ad hoc tribunals, senior leaders have been prosecuted for their actions in countries including Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cambodia and Rwanda.
Former Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic was put on trial by a U.N. tribunal in The Hague for fomenting bloody conflicts as Yugoslavia crumbled in the early 1990s.
Milosevic died in his cell before the court could reach a verdict. His Bosnian Serb ally Radovan Karadzic and the Bosnian Serb military leader, Gen. Ratko Mladic, were successfully prosecuted and are both serving life sentences.
Liberia’s Taylor was sentenced to 50 years after being convicted of sponsoring atrocities in neighboring Sierra Leone.
Chad’s former dictator Hissene Habre, who died last year, was the first former head of state to be convicted of crimes against humanity by an African court. He was sentenced to life.