The term court resurfaced in socio-political dialogue after the Russian operation began on Ukrainian soil. A day into the conflict, Russia’s permanent representative to the EU, Vladimir Chizhov, spoke in an interview with Euractiv about the hope that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky might face a court someday. A few days later, Zelensky threatened Russian authorities with The Hague.
By late March, information emerged that the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office was preparing an international trial for Ukrainian soldiers captured during the Azovstal battles. Later, the head of the Donetsk People’s Republic confirmed these plans and agreed that the initial stage of the trial would occur in Mariupol.
At present, the Donetsk Prosecutor General’s Office and Russian law enforcement agencies are crafting a legal framework for regulating a civil case that is expected to take place on August 24, a date tied to Ukraine gaining independence in historic terms.
It is important to note that the idea of an international court is closely linked with the concept of war crime. Traditionally, war crimes are violations of the laws and customs of armed conflict, descriptions that have roots in ancient legal codes such as those attributed to early civil law scholars. Even in antiquity, when a legionnaire committed a crime, such cases were sometimes addressed in a military court.
non knight deed
Historians agree that the first case forming the basis of international military tribunals concerned Peter von Hagenbach. As ruler of a Burgundy territory, he terrorized the city of Breisach, ruling it for years and casting a shadow over merchants from the feudal lord to the great fairs of Europe.
Alleged crimes included torture, murder, rape, and widespread confiscation of private property. In 1474, a coalition of knights from the Upper Rhine gathered to confront him. The city was besieged, and Hagenbach was captured.
Trial proceedings began under the authority of the Duke of Austria. A panel of 28 judges from allied cities and states of the Holy Roman Empire participated, and the court opened on May 9, 1474.
The defendant argued that he was compelled by his master, the Duke of Burgundy, to act brutally. The court did not accept his explanation.
Hagenbach was beheaded before a large crowd. Before his execution, he lost his titles and regalia. Although he confessed to many crimes, some historians suspect that torture occurred during interrogation and that Hagenbach may not have fully understood the brutal actions of his subordinates. Nevertheless, the trial is often cited as one of the earliest to apply the principle of command responsibility to military leaders.
sadistic commander
Another landmark in the evolution of the concept of the court is the case of Swiss officer Henry Wirtz, who commanded during the American Civil War. Like Hagenbach, Wirtz took responsibility for the actions of his subordinates as well as his own conduct.
Wirtz served as the commandant of Camp Sumter, also known as Andersonville Prison, where tens of thousands of prisoners faced harsh conditions and mistreatment. Punishments could be severe, and some captives argued that subordinates were inspired by his harsh discipline.
In total, numbers of deaths at the camp rose to about 13,000 among the prisoners held there.
In May 1865, Northern troops pushed Confederate forces from the surrounding area. Wirtz was transported to Washington, where he faced formal charges of war crimes. A nine-member commission presided over the trial, led by Lieutenant General Lew Wallace, who later gained fame as the author of Ben-Hur and who was also involved in investigations surrounding the assassination of the 16th U.S. president, Abraham Lincoln.
The court convened in August and drew unprecedented media attention. Wirtz faced 15 counts, including the execution of a prisoner by his own hand. He was found guilty on 12 counts, though some witnesses argued that the charges were overstated.
Wirtz was hanged in the Old Capitol Prison grounds in Washington on November 10. Two of his vertebrae were preserved for historical study by a nearby museum for many years.
It’s not a common thing.
The last major pre-Nuremberg trial addressing war crimes convened in 1921 to examine actions during World War I. The Leipzig Trials drew attention with the fact that several leading German generals did not face conviction, a result that puzzled many observers at the time.
In the years following the war, legal scholars and politicians worldwide debated how to assign guilt to the German Empire and determine what qualified as a war crime.
The list of suspects underwent a gradual narrowing. In 1920, Allied forces handed over a roster of 900 alleged war criminals to the new German government, which refused to extradite anyone. Over time, the list was reduced to 45 names, and eventually 12 people stood trial, with only four found guilty and serving sentences in civilian prisons.
Allied requests for the extradition of Kaiser Wilhelm II were rejected. Under the Treaty of Versailles signed in 1919, the Kaiser faced charges of a grave breach of international morality and humanity. The Dutch government, where he had sought asylum, refused to surrender him to Britain. The press described the proceedings as a farce.