The Disposable Nature: The Case of Ecocide and Corporate Accountability

The article examines the statistics of the Prosecutor General's Office, the Ukrainian Helsinki Union for Human Rights, and the Kharkiv Human Rights Group regarding the investigation of international war crimes. A sociological survey of NPU employees, the prosecutor's office, lawyers, and victims of war crimes was analyzed, and problematic issues that hinder the effective investigation of international crimes were outlined based on the results. It was found that the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court in relation to the investigation of the most serious international crimes is divided into: subject, territorial, universal, temporal and substantive. The subject jurisdiction of the ICC extends to crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. The national system of investigating crimes has been studied since 2014. It is theoretically justified that the key task at the moment is to document the consequences of an armed invasion - in an intensified mode, with the aim of providing both national and international judicial institutions with sufficient evidence, the Office of the General Prosecutor, the SBU, the NPU, the National Guard of Ukraine, other law enforcement structures. The problem of ensuring security during the collection of information by law enforcement officers, as well as other persons involved in the process of transferring information, evidence, testimony, etc., is outlined, because all these processes, as a rule, take place in the combat zone or in the adjacent territories. It was concluded that in order to improve the effectiveness of the investigation of international crimes in Ukraine, it is necessary to implement as soon as possible: a clear policy regarding the national system of prosecution for international crimes; effective coordination of both national and international bodies of pretrial investigation; quick exchange of information; a generalized electronic database of documentation with access to both prosecutors and investigators.

The Ljubljana–The Hague Convention on International Cooperation in the Investigation and Prosecution of the Crime of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity, War Crimes and Other International Crimes, adopted in May 2023, was accepted as more than a ‘pure’ mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT), as, in addition to regulating issues of mutual legal assistance, it also addresses substantive international criminal law issues. In this article, it is argued that due to this less flexible approach, the Convention may not be as widely accepted as it was intended to be and therefore might fail to achieve its goal to prevent impunity. This article presupposes that a pure MLAT — which concentrates on collaboration between states on procedural aspects of criminal investigations and preparations for prosecution — may be attractive to more states. This article focuses on extradition and discusses how to regulate extradition if the requirement that member states adopt unitary definitions of international core crimes in their domestic laws were omitted from the treaty. It suggests dual criminality and a flexible interpretation of this principle as a basis for extradition of alleged perpetrators of core crimes between states that define the prohibitions on international core crimes differently. This article also addresses ‘the special use’ of dual criminality, which requires a match of jurisdictional bases between the states involved in the process of extradition, and questions whether or not it should serve as a bar to extradition. In this context, this article addresses universal jurisdiction (UJ) and makes proposals to provide states parties with the option to limit extradition requested on the grounds of UJ according to parameters such as complementarity and the involvement of the prosecuting state’s high legal authorities in the prosecution or investigation of the alleged offence.

The article is devoted to the analysis of the provisions of the 2023 Convention on International Cooperation in the Investigation and Prosecution of the Crime of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity, War Crimes, and other International Crimes. The analysis of the provisions of the Convention is important for assessing the capacity of existing mechanisms to respond to international crimes committed in Ukraine. Therefore, the purpose of the article was to assess the provisions of the Convention, its correlation with the legislation of Ukraine, in the aspect of prosecution those guilty of international crimes against Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. The article examines in detail: the scope and purpose of the Convention; obligations of criminalization; obligation to establish jurisdiction; principle «aut dedere aut judicare»; areas of mutual legal assistance; provisions regarding victims. It is indicated that the Convention is an important step in the development of prosecution mechanisms for war crimes. Its unique feature is the presence of norms of international criminal law, despite the name, which concerns only international cooperation, which is not at all characteristic of other conventions on mutual legal assistance. Unfortunately, however, some war crimes and crime of aggression will require additional notification of the application of the Convention, which again reduces its potential positive impact on prosecutions for international crimes. The analysis of the provisions of the Convention allows us to reasonably assume that in the event of its ratification: there will be a need to improve the norms of the Criminal Code of Ukraine regarding the effect of the criminal law on persons and universal jurisdiction; will require updating the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine regarding the provision of international legal assistance; additions to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine regarding extradition in aspects of the «aut dedere aut judicare» principle will be required; will require verification on the issue of compliance of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine with the Convention regarding the participation of victims in criminal proceedings. In addition, the issue of regulation of restitution, compensation and rehabilitation and other forms of compensation for victims of international crimes will need to be resolved.

In the last two centuries, the world and humanity have changed more than ever. The rapid development of technology, but also socio-humanistic and political thought has led to a completely different perception of the world by people. The desire to spread influence, aided by technological development, has pushed the great powers into the bloodiest armed conflicts the world has ever seen. After the end of the First and Second World Wars, it proved necessary not only to sanction the leaders of the idea of aggressive war, but also to sanction the insult to the independence of countries through the armed attack. In this regard, the international community has approached a more detailed definition of the concept of aggression and crimes against peace (crime of aggression) and the establishment of appropriate mechanisms with the aim of preventing armed conflicts, stopping them and promoting peaceful settlement of international disputes. It is this idea that is the subject of the text that follows. The author wants to make his modest contribution to legal science in terms of analysis of the concept of aggression in international law (primarily in international public law), but also the definition and elements of (international) crime – crime against peace (aggression) in international criminal law. In addition to explaining and clarifying the content of the concept of aggression, the author will analyze this international crime contained in international documents, present the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court in relation to aggression, and explain the position and role of the United Nations in preventing armed conflict and peace. Finally, a critical analysis of all the above, the author will present the advantages and disadvantages of mechanisms for preventing armed conflict and punishing perpetrators of international crimes against peace through the prism of the amendment to the Rome Statute of the ICC.

Bangladesh is recently prosecuting and punishing the perpetrators of crimes against humanity and genocide committed in the Liberation War of 1971 via a domestically operated tribunal, namely the International Crimes Tribunal Bangladesh (ICTB). Though the Tribunal is preceded under municipal law, its material jurisdiction, i.e., crimes against humanity and genocide, originated from international criminal law. Therefore, this study examines several legal obligations of the ICTB in defining crimes against humanity and genocide as the core international crimes. First, I discuss several legal flaws of the Tribunal by defining crimes against humanity and genocide under the ICTB Statute and jurisprudence. Second, I scrutinize the legal status of international (treaty and customary) laws in Bangladesh’s legal system. Third, by applying international criminal law standards, I focus on the idea that it is one of the obligations of Bangladesh to apply international criminal law definitions of genocide under the treaty obligation as the contracting parties to Genocide Convention 1948, and the ICC Statute 1998. Fourthly, I also discuss whether Bangladesh has any obligation to apply customary international law definition of crimes against humanity because crimes against humanity are considered jus cogens offenses in general international law, from which no derogation is permitted. Lastly, I conclude that Bangladesh Tribunal failed to fulfill its legal obligation to define international crimes under the treaty and customary laws and forward a way to be implemented to improve the legislative system of Bangladesh and harmonize it with international legislation.

Enter your abstract here (an abstract is a brief, More importantly comprehensive summary of the contents of the article). Enter your abstract here (an abstract is a brief, More importantly comprehensive summary of the contents of the article). The adoption of the Statute of the International Criminal Court is one of the most important achievements in the last fifty years of the twentieth century. The truth is that the idea of ​​establishing this court is not new, as it did not escape the minds of the founders of the International Committee of the Red Cross. It did not come all at once, but rather gradually. This is confirmed by the clear impact of international humanitarian law, which is clearly evident through the adoption of the Statute of the International Criminal Court of many provisions contained in the agreements of international humanitarian law, perhaps the most important of which is the text of many international crimes such as the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression, which are the most important crimes addressed by the agreements of international humanitarian law before. The Statute did not stop there, but rather adopted many principles that originally belong to international humanitarian law, foremost among which is the principle of the non-applicability of statutes of limitations for international crimes.

This chapter argues that while many international law actors neglect their obligations to combat impunity and maintain international law and order, the European Union is a driving force in the fight against impunity for core international crimes (CIC) committed on the territory of Ukraine; it supports both national investigations in the EU States Parties and international criminal justice. The European Union played an important role in Ukraine’s ratification of the Rome Statute and supported the ICC in investigating international crimes committed in Ukraine after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Domestic investigations of core international crimes allegedly committed in Ukraine have been launched in at least 14 EU Member States and Eurojust’s coordination of national authorities allows for an effective fight against impunity. The raised issue is the fighting of impunity and future peace treaties with Russia and in any case the fight against impunity and justice should be served, and all those who committed international crimes to be held accountable.

The article states that the armed aggression against Ukraine has resulted in an unprecedented scale of core international crimes, which necessitates technically standardised and effective mech-anisms for the collection, verification, analysis, and preservation of digital evidence. The formation of a unified evidentiary environment through the use of materials from the Core International Crimes Evidence Database (CICED) becomes crucial for documenting war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and the crime of aggression. The purpose of the article is to conduct a comprehensive examination of the legal foundations for the establishment and functioning of CICED, to determine its role in proving core international crimes, to identify issues concerning the admissibility of CICED materials, and to develop scientifi-cally grounded proposals for their normative implementation into the criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine. The study relies on international and national legal instruments, empirical data from domestic and international jurisdictions, and academic sources. Its methodology is based on a combination of general scientific, special legal, and interdisciplinary methods, which together ensured a systematic and comprehensive analysis of the legal, procedural, and technological aspects of using CICED ma-terials in the prosecution of core international crimes. It has been demonstrated that the international digital platform CICED, operating within the legal mandate of the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust), ensures the technical processing of digital evidentiary materials, which includes: the recording of metadata and timestamps; cryptographic protection and hashing; the tagging and verification of file integrity; struc-tured storage in a secure environment; and the formation of technical linkages between individual materials to facilitate their analysis in the course of international investigations. The study establishes CICED’s interaction with joint investigation teams, the International Centre for the Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression, the International Criminal Court, Europol, the Euro-pean Public Prosecutor’s Office, as well as national law-enforcement and prosecutorial authorities. It concludes that the current criminal procedure legislation of Ukraine does not contain a special mechanism for incorporating digital evidence of international origin, including CICED materials, which creates risks of their inadmissibility. The article proposes introducing into national legislation legal provisions defining the concept, criteria of reliability, procedures for authentication and use of digital evidence of international origin, and establishing a state register of international evidence to ensure compatibility with international institutional platforms.

У статті аналізується еволюція концепції міжнародного злочину в постнюрнберзький період, зокрема тенденції та фактори, що вплинули на її розвиток. Показана трансформація поняття міжнародного злочину в його еволюції й названі його основні модифікації: «нюрнберзька», «постнюрнберзька», «гаазька» та «римська». Досліджені фактори, що вплинули на концепцію міжнародного злочину в постнюрнберзький період. Автор виявляє основні тенденції розвитку міжнародного кримінального права, що сформували концепцію міжнародного злочину у постнюрнберзький період, основним напрямом яких була розробка норм і механізму кримінальної відповідальності за воєнні злочини та злочини проти людяності в повоєнний період.

A new chapter on international crimes was introduced in the Danish Criminal Code on 1 January 2025. The new chapter offers a modernized definition of international crimes, which possibly could inspire other states and contribute to the development of customary international law in this area. The article reviews the new Chapter 13a of the Danish Criminal Code, which contains independent criminal provisions relating to crimes of aggression, genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and torture. It also briefly discusses Denmark’s decision to ratify Article 8bis of the Rome Statute concerning the crime of aggression. The appendix to the article provides an unofficial translation of Chapter 13a of the Danish Criminal Code.

Refugee status determination is difficult by its very nature but it becomes even more complex when the issue of exclusion under article 1F(a) is raised and it is alleged that there are ‘serious reasons for considering’ that the applicant is ‘guilty of having committed a crime against peace, a war crime or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments that have been drawn to make provision for such crimes’. The ‘War Crimes and Refugee Status’ Research Project’s Canadian jurisprudence dataset, consisting of 98 article 1F(a) cases, reveals that more than 91 per cent of these cases cite international humanitarian law (IHL) or international criminal law (ICL), but only 13 per cent of the cases cite UNHCR guidelines or directives. Interestingly, nearly two-thirds, 65.8 per cent, of these appeal cases are denied. Five of the most frequently cited judgments in this sample of cases were Ramirez , Moreno , Sivakumar , Harb , and Pushpanathan , in that order. After analyzing these five appeal court judgments in depth, seven legal principles were identified respecting the application and interpretation of IHL and ICL in Canada: (1) violations of international law can be committed by private individuals as well as states, or public officials acting on behalf of states; (2) the standard of proof for ‘serious reasons for considering’ under article 1F is lower than a balance of probabilities, the civil law standard; (3) two fundamental tenets on which complicity and culpability are established in international crimes are: (i) no one can commit an international crime without personal and knowing participation; (ii) complicity rests on the existence of a shared common purpose and the knowledge of all the parties involved; (4) Mere membership or passive acquiescence in a group or organization that commits international crimes can never be sufficient to exclude a refugee applicant under article 1F(a); (5) ‘Voluntary, significant and knowing contribution’ does not require formal membership in a group or organization that is engaged in crimes against peace, war crimes or crimes against humanity. An accomplice contributes knowingly to those activities of a group or organization that makes them possible. (6) the offence of ‘aiding and abetting’ cannot be made out by mere presence on the scene where an international crime has taken place. What is required is voluntary, significant and knowing contribution in persecutory acts. (7) there is a close affinity between article 1F(a), which deals with those activities that take place in situations of armed conflict, and article 1F(c), which deals with activities irrespective of whether or not they take place in a situation of armed conflict. Article 1F(a) and (c) can overlap in various ways, such as where the sales of illicit narcotics are used to finance the purchase of weapons that are used in armed conflicts and/or for terrorist activities. The new test for exclusion under article 1F(a) in Canada, ‘voluntary, significant and knowing contribution,’ leaves a broad area of discretion for refugee law decision makers. This will cause, undoubtedly, legal contention in the appellate courts as the article 1F(a) cases make their way through the judicial process in Canada. The application and interpretation of international refugee law under article 1F(a) in Canada will continue to evolve with national court judgments as well as the development of international humanitarian and criminal law.

Introduction: Today, a new concept of understanding international criminal law as an independent branch establishing the substantive legal grounds for recognising a particular act as criminal is being developed. Such acts certainly include war crimes (criminal violations of the laws and customs of warfare). Meanwhile, there is an urgent need to develop a categorical concept of “war crime” in international criminal law, to determine the place of such crimes in the system of crimes against peace and security of mankind, and to resolve several theoretical problems of the substantive legal basis for establishing international criminal liability for war crimes. In addition, despite the constitutional provisions on the primacy of international law over domestic law, the issue of the degree of compliance of national criminal law with the provisions of international law in the area of regulation of liability for war crimes remains unresolved. Objective: The study aims to find opportunities to develop effective mechanisms for classifying war crimes in the current war in Ukraine and to bring perpetrators to justice. The rules of international law are highly developed, primarily reflected in the availability of a broad and detailed list of acts recognised as international crimes. According to the amendments to the Rome Statute that added war crimes to the International Criminal Court (ICC) jurisdiction, a state must confirm the ICC’s jurisdiction over aggression for its citizens to be tried for the crime. Results: However, Russia has not done so. Due to this limitation, there are frequent calls for establishing a separate tribunal to prosecute Russian officials for aggression. However, implementing these calls still faces problems due to insufficient precedents. At the same time, the list of actions that can be considered violations of the laws and customs of war does not necessarily have to coincide with the list in Article 8 of the Rome Statute or the list of severe violations of international humanitarian law under the Geneva Convention or the First Additional Protocol.

The article examines the problems associated with the classification of international crimes. It is stated that in the doctrine of international law, international crimes are understood as the most serious and dangerous violations of the principles and norms of international law which encroach on the global interests of humanity and pose a threat to international peace and security. The author analyses the classification of international crimes provided for in the statutes of the Nuremberg and Tokyo International Military Tribunals, the Geneva Conventions, the United Nations documents, the Rome Statute, and case law. It is noted that the list of international crimes is only approximate, since it will constantly change as international law develops. Today, in our opinion, the corpus delicti of international crimes are most fully presented in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of 1998. They include: genocide; crimes against humanity; war crimes; aggression. It is noted that, in addition to inhuman acts (murder, extermination, enslavement, exile and other cruelties committed against civilians before or during war) and persecution of a human group (for political, racial or religious reasons), the list of crimes against humanity also includes torture, sexual crimes, enforced disappearance of persons and apartheid when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against any civilians. It is noted that the full-scale russian armed aggression is accompanied by the commission of numerous international crimes on the territory of Ukraine which have no statute of limitations. The author emphasises that the main discrepancy between national legislation and generally recognised corpus delicti of international crimes in international criminal law is the absence of criminalisation of crimes against humanity and the absence of the institution of command responsibility (chief of command). It is concluded that the main legislative step is to bring the national criminal legislation of Ukraine into full compliance with the requirements of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to ensure fair, necessary and inevitable punishment of persons who commit international crimes.

Important innovations have occurred and spread in international criminal law and justice. Arguing that they result from institutional learning, this essay focuses on universal jurisdiction, a principle of international law that invites the prosecution of perpetrators of core international crimes (war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes of aggression, and genocide), irrespective of their nationality and the country of perpetration. It further addresses the increasing use of “crimes against humanity,” requiring proof of systematic or widespread patterns of offending against a civilian population; specialized investigatory and prosecutorial units; structural investigations; and the involvement of coordinating agencies working across national boundaries. Learning by criminal legal institutions is enhanced as civil society organizations, including ones growing out of refugee populations, discover and seize new legal opportunities to enhance accountability and a public understanding of mass atrocity crimes. Recent years have witnessed a growing body of literature on these trends, core contributions to which are reviewed in this essay.

The article examines the norms of current international criminal law, from the standpoint of the lack of a conceptual definition of the concept of "war crimes", which, in turn, is a gap in international law. Considering war crimes from the current point of view, given the accumulated positive scientific achievements and law enforcement practice, it is reasonable to define them as gross violations of international humanitarian law committed during armed conflicts (international and non-international), entailing individual criminal responsibility for international right. It is clarified that war crimes are a type of crime against the peace and security of mankind, in connection with which they have common features for these crimes: increased degree of public danger; the orientation of such criminal acts on the interests protected by international law; their criminalization and punishment are carried out in accordance with international law. It is proved that war crimes are characterized by special (peculiar only to them) features: it can be committed only during an armed conflict; the object of encroachment is the procedure of armed conflict established by international law and the security interests of persons (individuals) protected by international law; gross nature of the violation; the consequences for the rights and interests protected by international humanitarian law; peculiarities of the subjective side - along with the features inherent in all crimes against peace and security of mankind, it is necessary for the perpetrator to be aware of the fact of armed conflict; the perpetrator of a war crime must be aware of the factual circumstances that indicate the protected status of persons - victims of the crime. Given these special features of war crimes, their detailed definition is proposed: socially dangerous, criminal acts committed during armed conflicts (international or non-international) that encroach on the established by international humanitarian law, the interests and security of defenders, and entail individual criminal liability in accordance with the rules of international criminal law.