Tag: Ukraine

Loophole Allows Safe Haven for War Crimes Violators on U.S. Soil

Posted on

April 28, Chris Jenks, SMU Dallas Dedman Law School professor and expert on military justice, for a commentary about a loophole in the U.S. War Crimes Act that would allow war criminals safe haven on American soil. Published in Inside Sources under the heading Loophole Allows Safe Haven for War Crimes Violators on U.S. Soil:  https://bit.ly/3F3i5q3 

Earlier this month President Biden ratcheted up the rhetoric and called for a “wartime trial” of Russian President Vladimir Putin. The president’s comments followed Secretary of State Antony Blinken condemning “atrocities by Kremlin forces in Bucha and across Ukraine” and stressing that the United States was “pursuing accountability using every tool available.”

All this tough talk is a façade — a superficial exterior masking the hollowness within. In terms of Blinken’s analogy, the U.S. war crimes tool box is empty, and willfully so. That’s because for more than 70 years, the United States has doggedly refused to meet its obligation under the 1949 Geneva Conventions to enact legislation to hold accountable those who commit serious law of war violations.

Continue reading “Loophole Allows Safe Haven for War Crimes Violators on U.S. Soil”

Russia’s withdrawal from the Council of Europe is a loss of hope for human rights

Posted on

March 23, Jeffrey Kahn, law professor at SMU Dallas Dedman School of Law, for a commentary explaining why Russia exiting the Council of Europe is a blow to human rights initiatives in the region. Published in the Dallas Morning News with the heading: Russia’s withdrawal from the Council of Europe is a loss of hope for human rights: https://bit.ly/3L5rMGn or https://perma.cc/T4S3-LEV2 

The last light that kindled hope for Russia to be included within Europe burned out last week. Russia withdrew from the Council of Europe. This decision, coinciding with the council’s decision to terminate Russian membership with an eye toward expulsion, is much graver than widely understood.

This is no mere diplomatic rift. It is the snuffing out of hope not only for millions of Russians, but for hundreds of millions of Europeans whose countries remain members of an organization that emerged from the embers of Europe’s last horrible conflagration.

Continue reading “Russia’s withdrawal from the Council of Europe is a loss of hope for human rights”

Putin’s vile bid to erase the Jewish sacrifice in Ukraine

Posted on

March 6, Rick Halperin, director of the SMD Dallas Human Rights Program, for a piece criticizing Russia for attempts to erase The Ukriane’s Jewish heritage and sacrifice during war. Published in the Austin American-Statesman under the heading Putin’s vile bid to erase the Jewish sacrifice in Ukraine: https://bit.ly/370FY4x 

Much of the world remains captivated and appalled at the Russian invasion of Ukraine; the unprovoked attack promises to bring much more suffering, tragedy and death to its people, and possibly its president, Volodymyr Zelensky.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has stated that he wants to “de-Nazify” Ukraine, a vile and outrageous statement especially given that President Zelensky is Jewish. During World War II, Ukraine was a major area of fighting, death and genocide. Two-and-a-half million soldiers were killed in Ukraine between 1941-1944, and 4.5 million civilians were killed there in the same timeframe. The 7 million deaths constituted almost 11 % of the country’s pre-war population, a figure exceeded only by Poland’s loss of 19.6 % of its population during WWII.

Continue reading “Putin’s vile bid to erase the Jewish sacrifice in Ukraine”

Putin can be prosecuted for crimes of aggression — but likely not any time soon

Posted on

March 4, Anthony Colangelo, Professor of Law at the SMU Dallas Dedman School of Law, for a commentary outlining the international laws that make it possible to prosecute Vladimir Putin for various war crimes.  Published in The Hill under the heading Putin can be prosecuted for crimes of aggression — but likely not any time soon: https://bit.ly/3KccW0a 

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a clear violation of international law that opens the door to prosecuting Russian President Vladimir Putin down the road. The United Nations Charter prohibits aggressive use of force, and Russia has no valid claim that it is using force in self-defense. To assert self-defense, a state must be the victim of an actual or imminent armed attack. No facts support a claim that Russia is the victim of such an attack.

The ban on aggressive use of force is such a fundamental element of international law that when a state breaches it, its leaders can be held criminally responsible. After World War II, dozens of political and military leaders of Germany and Japan were convicted of the crime of aggression by international tribunals set up in Nuremberg and Tokyo.

Continue reading “Putin can be prosecuted for crimes of aggression — but likely not any time soon”

Could Russia legally use nuclear weapons in response to a U.S. intervention in Ukraine?

Posted on

Jan. 26,  Anthony Colangelo, Professor of Law at the SMU Dallas Dedman School of Law, for a piece outlining the consequences of using nuclear weapons should Russia decide to do so during aggression against Ukraine. Published in Foreign Policy News under the heading Could Russia legally use nuclear weapons in response to a U.S. intervention in Ukraine?: https://bit.ly/32KnQKu

There is an ominous new development in the potential Russian invasion of the Ukraine and the U.S. response. According to the New York Times, “nuclear weapons could be shifted to places — perhaps not far from the United States coastline — that would reduce warning times after a launch to as little as five minutes, potentially igniting a confrontation with echoes of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.”

This is in keeping with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s desire to expand Russia’s sphere of influence to Eastern Europe and commitments that NATO will not enlarge. Some of Putin’s aides suggested last week that should he fail to achieve these objectives, he would pursue Russia’s security interests with results that would be felt in Europe and the United States, including the placement of nuclear weapons near the United States coast close enough to reach the capital.

Continue reading “Could Russia legally use nuclear weapons in response to a U.S. intervention in Ukraine?”

Yes, the US can legally intervene if Russia invades Ukraine

Posted on

Dec. 20, Anthony Colangelo, Professor of Law at the SMU Dallas Dedman School of Law, for a piece explaining why the U.S. has a legal right to intervene in Ukraine should Russia decide to invade. Published in History News Network under the heading ‘The U.S. Can Legally Intervene in the Ukraine Should Russia Invade’: https://bit.ly/3msrL5n , and subsequently in The Hill Jan. 27, 2022: https://bit.ly/3AOSEGt

Recent signs suggest that Russian President Vladimir Putin is seriously considering invading Ukraine. To help prevent this from happening, the United States has two options: the soft option and the hard option.

The soft option involves diplomatic measures such as increased sanctions and trade punishments like cutting off financial markets. Generally, countries prefer utilizing this option to foster de-escalation for the simple reason that it is cheaper and minimizes civilian death and suffering. But there is a chronological component here: There must be enough time for the measures to work, and if there is not, countries may be forced to pursue the hard option.

Continue reading “Yes, the US can legally intervene if Russia invades Ukraine”