Abstract
AbstractThe article analyzes the approach of the Ukrainian state to criminal accountability for crimes associated with the ongoing Donbas conflict: crimes against state security, which led to the outbreak of the conflict, and crimes committed by persons directly engaged in the conflict. The main question addressed in the article is whether there is any trace of a deliberate policy of mitigating punishments to those who engaged themselves in different sorts of anti-government actions associated with the Donbas conflict, for the sake of achieving peace. The article contains a comparative analysis of relevant court decisions in order to identify the combinations of conditions that led to the issue of suspended prison sentences (less punitive judgements). The findings suggest that Ukrainian authorities have consistently punished their adversaries in accordance with existing regulations. During the first four years of the conflict, the authorities have not appeared to provide any sort of concessions to their adversaries that could be justified by the circumstances of an armed conflict, and have acted in a manner that can be called “legalist.”
Highlights
At the beginning of 2014, Ukraine experienced a series of turbulent events with no precedence in the contemporary history of the state
In other words, is there any evidence of a deliberate policy of mitigating punishments to those who engaged themselves in different sorts of anti-government actions associated with the Donbas conflict, for the sake of achieving peace? This leads to our secondary question: what are the impacts of Ukrainian court practices on the process of national reconciliation?
Withdrawal of changes may appear harmful to the peace process. These considerations lead us to the following question: is there any evidence of Ukrainian courts going beyond the existing “rules of the game” and taking into account the specific circumstances that arose with the outbreak of the Donbas conflict when issuing sentences to those who engaged in the conflict? in the following parts of the article, we aim to explore whether there is any evidence suggesting that the scope of punishment was somehow dictated by the specific circumstances of the ongoing conflict, and, whether the goal of justice was somehow given up for the sake of achieving the goal of peace
Summary
At the beginning of 2014, Ukraine experienced a series of turbulent events with no precedence in the contemporary history of the state. After that, Russia launched a de facto campaign of aggression against Ukraine: the Crimean Peninsula was annexed, and in the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, self-proclaimed “people’s republics” emerged, enjoying Russia’s political and material support These events led to an armed conflict which affected a significant part of Ukraine’s population. The Ukrainian state addresses conflictrelated wrongdoings based on provisions of the criminal code that existed before the outbreak of the conflict Without any doubt, this practice generates consequences that may have an impact on dynamics of reconciliation between parts of the divided society: persons engaged in warfare face the risk of punishment, and those punished are branded as criminals.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
