Corporate involvement in atrocity crimes in Ukraine

Corporate involvement in atrocity crimes refers to instances in which businesses are linked to the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, or other gross human rights violations. This article traces four trends in the regulation of this phenomenon, from the 1600 s to the present. I argue that the persuasive trend of no regulation of this type of corporate wrongdoing has seen three countertrends: international criminal justice, civil society labelling corporate involvement in atrocity crimes as something worth engaging with, and institutionalization of norms. This article describes and analyses these trends, uncovering some recurring patterns that emerge in efforts towards preventing, ending, or limiting corporate involvement in atrocity crimes.

Corporate involvement in atrocity crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, has become an important topic for ngo s, activists and scholars from different disciplines, often focusing on the important question how to achieve a better regulation of and accountability for corporate roles in atrocities. This contribution, instead, is focused on the aetiology of this phenomenon. A theoretical framework is proposed based on, on the one hand, what follows from criminological research on corporate crime, state crime and state-corporate crime and, on the other hand, in-depth case studies of three contexts: Nazi Germany (1933–1945), Apartheid South Africa (1948–1994) and the drc (1996–2016). The proposed framework identifies the motivational drivers, opportunity aspects, and elements of the (lack of) control that, together, can explain why that corporation became involved in atrocity crimes. The framework is intended to—through application to new case studies—improve knowledge about and understanding of corporate involvement in atrocity crimes and to expand the conceptual and theoretical understanding of this phenomenon.

Ukrainian law enforcement agencies are working in cooperation with the International Criminal Court - ICC and countries that jointly support the ICC to collect evidence of Russia’s atrocity crimes in order to hold the alleged perpetrators accountable. The collection of evidence in the situation of Ukraine ever turned into an unprecedented investigation of the likely international crimes committed by Russian armed forces in Ukraine. This study aims to determine the fundamental role and significance of the ICC in a collective investigation of the situation in Ukraine. Knowing that the definition of the term “war crimes” does not exist in the current legislation of Ukraine, this study attempts a correlative analysis of the term “war crimes” in the context of international law and finds that Ukrainian law enforcement agencies and institutions are capable of documenting war crimes committed in Ukraine by the Russian Federation. This suggests that the ICC, in comparison to its previous international investigations, definitively has a wide range of support resources to hold accountable “those most responsible“ for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, as emphasized in its prosecutorial policy documents.

While political and military leaders are generally seen as the most responsible perpetrators, corporations often also have an important role to play in the commission of atrocity crimes. This chapter broadly explores the involvement of corporations in atrocity crimes, where links between the company and its activities and the commission of such types of crimes can be identified. It is based on data from a set of cases collected by the authors, which includes 105 cases since World War II. The chapter starts by defining features of corporate involvement in such crimes, and then provides an overview of types of crimes, corporations, industries, and involvement in atrocity crimes since 1945. It then proceeds to detail the processes, mechanisms, and gains of such involvement or the “crime scripts.” An in-depth analysis of two historical cases, one from the Holocaust and one from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, complements this overview.

It is indicated that russia’s aggression against Ukraine, which began in 2014 with the annexation of Crimea by the russian federation, has since intensified significantly, especially after the large-scale invasion of russia in February 2022. This armed aggression of the russian federation against Ukraine led to a serious humanitarian crisis, serious violations of international humanitarian law (IHL), international criminal law (ICC) and international human rights law (IHRC). The article explores the international legal responses to russia’s ongoing aggression against Ukraine, beginning with the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and intensifying with the full-scale invasion in February 2022. This war has led to severe humanitarian crises and widespread violations of international humanitarian law, international criminal law, and international human rights law. The paper focuses on war crimes, including targeting civilians, the use of prohibited weapons, and the unlawful deportation of children to russia. This article addresses the scientific literature on the war crimes committed by russia against Ukraine and IHL implementation, noting the lack of research on forensic methodologies for war crime investigations in Ukraine. While Ukrainian scholars emphasize integrating international law into national legislation, foreign experts provide more detailed forensic approaches. The study evaluates the actions of international bodies like the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the United Nations, alongside efforts by the European Union and others, to ensure accountability and reparations, with particular focus on the various mechanisms established to address war crimes, human rights abuses, and the path toward reparations and justice for Ukraine. Special attention is given to international initiatives, such as the Atrocity Crime Advisor Group (ACA) and the International Centre for the Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression (ICPA), which are crucial in enhancing Ukraine’s ability to prosecute atrocity crimes. The article underscores the need for coordinated international legal and financial support to achieve justice for the victims and rebuild Ukraine.

The dilemma between the root of the word Genocide and its legal meaning is affecting the international criminal justice system. The proof is that Presidents Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine and Joe Biden of the USA called the atrocity crimes observed in Ukraine “Genocide”. The purpose of this study is to examine whether the atrocities that recently occurred in Bucha could be qualified as a crime of genocide. This article substantially analyzed the meaning of the terms composing the word genocide in the context of the nature of those atrocity crimes. In this regard, it was found that there is etymologically a gap between the legal meaning of genocide and the nature of the crime in question which shields its alleged perpetrators from impunity. Thus, this paper attempted to demonstrate that the alleged atrocity crimes observed in Bucha could not be classified as genocide and then, exposed the potential international crimes committed in Ukraine.

Save the Ukrainian People First: They Carry their Culture in their Hearts

The article deals with the issue of significance of applying legal categories and concepts in strict accordance with their actual legal content, without adding emotional layers and expanding their importance due to the extraordinary military conditions. In particular, it should be noted that such trend is considered extremely detrimental to the process of pre-trial investigation in criminal proceedings regarding war crimes. Namely, it is stated as a fact that the general public in Ukraine is involved in activities connected with identifying, recording and collecting evidence of war crimes. In this way, a false public opinion is formed that every citizen, in an individual way, as well as through a network of organizations created on a state or public basis, is considered a subject of collecting evidence of war crimes in Ukraine related to the armed aggression of the Russian Federation. Instead, it is emphasized that in the area of criminal procedure, the «subjects of investigation» in such criminal proceedings, as in any other proceedings, are only specially authorized subjects that are persons who have the status of a subject responsible for collecting evidence taking into consideration their professional knowledge, official duties and authorities. It is stressed that this issue is of exceptional importance due to the requirements of the procedural format regarding the adequacy of evidence, since the identified, recorded and collected information about war crimes in Ukraine by a private citizen, transferred to volunteer NGOs is not considered evidence, since it is assumed that the evidence is also an appropriate status of data or information that testifies to the quality, reliability and procedural character of the activities performed to obtain them. On the basis of this, attention should be drawn to the fundamental issue of the interdependence of the authorized subjects who collect evidence of war crimes in Ukraine and the adequacy of evidence that impacts the efficiency of pre-trial investigation, the quality of court decisions and the indicator of justice and legality of justice in the country. At the same time, it should be specified that the call for strict compliance with the requirements of the procedural form regarding the subject composition of the process of war crimes evidence collection in Ukraine does not mean diminishing the activities of the private and public community, but it should be noted that this activity has different historical value, significance and purpose not related to criminal proceedings regarding war crimes. It should be summarized that the arbitrary use of legal categories and concepts, unjustified expansion of their content, do not provide for ensuring the quality of pre-trial investigation of war crimes and create a false idea in society about the criminal procedural activities of state bodies, which adversely affects the process of raising the level of legal culture of the citizens of Ukraine. Key words: war crimes, subjects of investigation, subjects of gathering and fixing evidence, parties to criminal proceedings, admissibility of evidence.

The expression ‘atrocity crimes’, apparently first proposed by David Scheffer, and subsequently adopted by the Special Advisers to the United Nations Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide and on the Responsibility to Protect, has emerged in recent years as shorthand for the offences that comprise the common denominator of the subject matter jurisdiction of the modern international criminal tribunals: genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Since the modern generation of international criminal courts and tribunals began activity in the mid 1990s, essentially all of the prosecutions have been for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Exceptionally, the prosecutions at the Special Tribunal for Lebanon are for terrorist crimes under Lebanese law. The Special Court for Sierra Leone was able to exercise jurisdiction over some serious offences in the criminal law of Sierra Leone but the Prosecutor never sought indictments under the relevant provisions. And, soon, the International Criminal Court will be able to deal with the crime of aggression, a subject discussed in the chapter in this book by Benjamin and Donald Ferencz. All of the tribunals also have jurisdiction over offences related to their own operations, in particular perjury and contempt of court. The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘atrocity’ as ‘[a]n atrocious deed; an act of extreme cruelty or heinousness’, offering Thomas Jefferson as the historical example of its first use: ‘To defend themselves from the atrocities of a vastly more numerous and powerful people.’ Jefferson was justifying the young American government's provision of weapons to aboriginal peoples in Florida in order to protect themselves from Spanish colonialists. The association with this early manifestation of ‘humanitarian intervention’ is intriguing because ‘atrocity crimes’ are the unifying principle of the modern doctrine of the responsibility to protect, defined by the United Nations General Assembly in 2005. In international law, the tripartite classification of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes can be traced to the First World War. On 24 May 1915, the United Kingdom, France, and Russia informed the Ottoman rulers of reports of ‘these new crimes of Turkey against humanity and civilisation’. This was the first use of the term ‘crime against humanity’ in an official context although it had been employed by writers since the middle of the eighteenth century.

This article navigates the complexities of domestic prosecution of war crimes in Ukraine following Russia's invasion in February 2022. The unprecedented scale of atrocities has presented significant challenges to domestic prosecutors and judges in addressing the multifaceted legal landscape. The research aims to provide a nuanced understanding of various actors' roles, responsibilities, and investigations within Ukraine's national legal and judicial system. The article offers a comprehensive overview of the infrastructure of domestic criminal prosecution, emphasising the pivotal role played by the national legal and judicial system. It explores the accountability, methods, and investigations associated with war crimes and outlines the general challenges that Ukraine's domestic judicial prosecution system faces. The research unravels the intricacies of Ukraine's domestic criminal justice system and illustrates its multifaceted responsibilities and functions. By highlighting the critical role of the national legal and judicial system, the article identifies challenges that underscore the complexity of prosecuting war crimes domestically. The analysis reveals crucial aspects of prosecuting war crimes in Ukraine. Hurdles in navigating the legal terrain, collecting and preserving evidence, securing credible witnesses, and overcoming jurisdictional barriers underscore the need for bolstering investigative capacities and fostering international cooperation. The identified challenges highlight the imperative for enhanced training and capacity-building initiatives within the legal and judicial sectors. The overarching challenge lies in promoting a systemic shift in the legal culture, emphasising accountability for international crimes. Addressing these challenges requires a multi-faceted approach involving legal reforms, capacity-building, international collaboration, and a cultural shift towards recognising the significance of prosecuting international crimes. Ukraine can effectively pursue justice for such egregious crimes through a comprehensive strategy.

Purpose. The purpose of our research is to form a legal assessment of Russian war crimes in Ukraine, including on the basis of the historical retrospective of human rights violations that took place in the Soviet era. Method. The methodology includes the complex use of scientific approaches and principles, as well as general scientific, philosophical and special scientific methods. Results. It was established that during the more than ten-year period of Russia's military aggression against Ukraine, many violations in the field of international law were committed, related to the violation of human rights and international humanitarian law. Many of these violations can be equated to war crimes and crimes against humanity. Among them, deliberate killings of both civilians and prisoners of war occupy an important place. In our opinion, it is worth paying attention to the most revealing «war crimes» committed by Russia in Ukraine and which require its prosecution, namely the deportation of minors; execution of prisoners of war; the crime of ecocide; mass killings and abuse of the civilian population. It was established that the national legislation does not provide for the definition of «war crimes» at all and operates only with the concept of «war crimes», which does not fully reflect the essence of the problem. As a result, it is now necessary not only to harmonize the norms of national and international legislation in the context of defining the content of such types of crimes as war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression, but also to intensify the attention of international institutions responsible for their investigation. Scientific novelty. An analysis of national legislation on the qualification of war crimes committed and committed by Russia in Ukraine was carried out. Practical significance. The results of the research can be used in further historical and legal studies, preparation of special courses.

This study, using content analysis and frame analysis, examines whether there is any connection between the International Criminal Court’s (ICC’s) announcement on the fifth day of Russia’s war against Ukraine (which began on 24 February 2022) that it would investigate credible allegations of Russia’s war crimes in Ukraine, and the reporting of the international press in those first five days. This study finds a functional relationship between the ICC’s application of international law and international press reporting, in that the latter pursued an agenda grounded in the sources of international law. This reporting appeared to have made people think about the likelihood of Russia’s war crimes in Ukraine (accessibility effect) and that Putin and his regime should be punished under international law (applicability effect). In turn, this was advantageous to the ICC’s announcement that it would investigate allegations of Russian war crimes in Ukraine. The speed of the ICC’s decision to open this investigation opens questions as to what distinguished the situation in Ukraine from similar situations. Media reporting may have contributed to a broader rationale for potential realpolitik objectives concerning Ukraine and Russia, underpinned by laudable humanitarian and legal concerns. This study concludes that if power saturates law, then the media is a diffusing agent of that power—an actor that spreads and amplifies elite narratives into the public sphere, rationalising the actions of institutions like the ICC.

The principle of the "responsibility to protect" (R2P) has achieved, within a remarkably short span of time, a rhetorical presence in international politics and international law that has invited both praise and skepticism.' In its simplest and most widely accepted formulation, R2P represents the responsibility of governments and the international community to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity—all of which are categories of significant crimes that should be designated as atrocity crimes, both for purposes of accuracy when describing the basket of relevant crimes and for simplicity as a means of communicating with the global populace. In this chapter I will examine what is meant by each of these categories of crimes and by the unifying term, atrocity crimes. An understanding of the legal basis for R2P must underpin efforts to activate the principles of R2P on the world stage. In reality, not all atrocity crimes, particularly some categories of crimes against humanity and war crimes, necessarily justify military intervention as the most extreme application of R2P. Drawing the line between atrocity crimes that would merit and those that would lack justification for military intervention when all else fails under R2P could become an extremely difficult task in world affairs.

The article is dedicated to exploring the legislation of Ukraine in the sphere of regulating war crimes. The research is based on the analysis of normative acts of international humanitarian and criminal law, which have established serious violations of the laws and customs of war and equated them with serious international crimes. Additionally, attention is focused on the long­standing experience of international institutions dealing with the regulation of the mechanism of punishment for war criminals. For Ukraine, the issue of war crimes has become relevant in the conditions of armed conflict caused by the aggression of the Russian Federation. Currently, the number of these crimes is gradually increasing. By the end of 2023, over 109,000 instances of war crimes committed by the Russian armed forces had been documented. Alongside, the number of criminal proceedings for violations of the laws and customs of war is increasing. It was further noted that deficiencies in the legislative definition of war crimes and the lack of necessary legal practice in such a specific category of offenses lead to difficulties in qualifying war crimes. The basis for qualifying a crime is the composition of a criminal offense. In Ukraine, there is a single provision providing for criminal liability for violations of the laws and customs of war — Section 438 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. This article lacks both a definition of war crime and a clear objective aspect of the offense, and the punishment is less severe compared to other general criminal statutes. Section 438 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is generic. Due to such wording of war crimes in Ukraine, the practice of additional qualification of violations of the laws and customs of war under articles on torture, intentional grievous bodily harm, intentional moderate bodily harm, intentional minor bodily harm, coercion to testify, etc., has spread. Avoiding difficulties in qualifying war crimes can be achieved through access to sources of international humanitarian and criminal law. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is one of the most important legal acts that has codified the entire range of elements of war crimes and detailed them. Ukraine is a signatory to the Rome Statute, but has not yet ratified it.

The Oxford Handbook on Atrocity Crimes consolidates and further develops the evolving field of atrocity studies by combining major mono-, inter-, and multidisciplinary research on atrocity crimes in one volume encompassing contributions of leading scholars. Atrocity crimes—war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide—are manifestations of large-scale and systematic criminality committed within specific political, ideological, and societal contexts. These crimes are typically committed by multiple actors against a large number of victims who suffer far-reaching consequences. Scholars studying mass atrocities are scattered not only across disciplines—such as international (criminal) law, international relations, criminology, political science, psychology, sociology, history, anthropology, and demography—but also across the topic-related fields, which are by definition multi- and interdisciplinary but are typically limited to a particular category or aspect of atrocity crimes. This Handbook brings together these strands of scholarship and interrogates atrocity crimes as an overarching category of criminality, while simultaneously recognizing and theorizing differences among the individual constitutive categories. The Handbook covers topics related to the etiology and causes of atrocities, the actors involved, the victims of atrocity crimes and related harms, the reactions to atrocity crimes, and in-depth case studies of understudied situations of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.