Ukraine, European rights body sign accord for tribunal on Russian aggression
June 25 (Reuters) - Ukraine and the Council of Europe human rights body signed an agreement on Wednesday forming the basis for a special tribunal intended to bring to justice senior Russian officials for the crime of aggression against Ukraine.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and Council of Europe Secretary General Alain Berset signed the accord in the French city of Strasbourg at the Council's headquarters.
"This is truly a very important step. Every war criminal must know there will be justice and that includes Russia. We are now boosting the legal work in a serious way," Zelenskiy told the ceremony.
"There is still a long road ahead. Today's agreement is just the beginning. We must take real steps to make it work. It will take strong political and legal cooperation to make sure every Russian war criminal faces justice, including (President Vladimir) Putin."
Ukraine has demanded the creation of such a body since Russia's February 2022 invasion, accusing Russian troops of committing thousands of war crimes. It is also intent on prosecuting Russians for orchestrating the invasion.
The 46-member Council of Europe, set up after World War Two to uphold human rights and the rule of law, approved the tribunal in May, saying it was intended to be complementary to the International Criminal Court and fill legal gaps in prosecutions.
The ICC has issued an arrest warrant against Putin, accusing him of illegally deporting hundreds of children from Ukraine.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
15 minutes ago
- Sky News
Trump is ‘daddy' at NATO: Is the flattery working?
👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈 US correspondent Mark Stone and security and defence editor Deborah Haynes chat all things NATO Summit - the cringe-worthy 'Daddy' moment, as well as the substance to come out of it. How is NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte handling Trump? And what next for the global conflicts commanding the agenda? If you've got a question you'd like the Trump100 team to answer, you can email it to trump100@ You can also watch all episodes on our YouTube channel.
The Guardian
30 minutes ago
- The Guardian
EU rollback on environmental policy is gaining momentum, warn campaigners
The European Union's rollback of environment policy is gaining momentum, campaigners have warned, in a deregulation drive that has shocked observers with its scale and speed. EU policymakers have dealt several critical blows to their much-vaunted European Green Deal since the end of 2023, when opinion polls suggested a significant rightward shift before the 2024 parliamentary elections. Environment groups say the pace has picked up under the competition-focused agenda of the new European Commission. The most striking examples are the 'omnibus' packages that water down sustainable finance rules, some of which have been put on hold even before they came into force, and which member states proposed diluting further on Monday. The European Commission has promised more simplification measures to 'radically lighten the regulatory load' on people and businesses. In the first six months of the new European Commission mandate, the EU also delayed a law to stop deforestation in supply chains by one year, gave carmakers two extra years to meet pollution targets and downgraded the protection status of the wolf. Environmental NGOs have found themselves in the crosshairs of a funding freeze they argue undermines democracy. The political tensions reached a high this week after an anti-greenwashing law was seemingly killed in the final stages of negotiations. The warnings of green backsliding come amid a global slump in efforts to cut pollution. In the UK, the government has faced growing political resistance to its target to hit net zero by 2050. In the US, Donald Trump has begun his second term with a series of attacks on environment agencies and policies as he seeks to promote fossil fuels. 'DRILL, BABY, DRILL!!!' he told the US Department of Energy in a social media post on Monday. 'And I mean NOW!!! Green groups say similar – albeit less sensational – shifts are under way in Brussels, which boasts some of the most ambitious rules to clean up a polluting economy. 'There has been a radical change in political priorities – and this came before Trump was even close to election in the US,' said Marco Contiero, Greenpeace EU's agricultural policy director. Bold green policies from the EU's executive body have typically been watered down as they pass through protracted negotiations with other institutions. Critics say ambition is now being lost at the top while resistance is growing stronger throughout the legislative process. After farmers' protests swept across Europe last year, lawmakers and member states nearly killed off a nature restoration law that EU institutions had already negotiated. It was the first sign of open revolt against the Green Deal that the centre-right president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, had put forward in 2019 after student climate protests. 'The fact that the Green Deal became the poster child of the first von der Leyen Commission was received with surprise by civil society, industry, and lobbies,' said Contiero. 'In a very similar manner, so has her decision to radically change her approach.' In mission letters to commissioners in September, von der Leyen set targets to reduce administrative burdens by 25% for all companies and by 35% for small- and medium-sized enterprises, with a 'one in, one out' principle to ensure that new rules displaced existing ones. The Commission also promised to fight 'gold-plating' measures, in which member states add their own rules that go beyond what the EU requires. The push to cut red tape has been led by the European People's party (EPP), the largest group in parliament and the political home of 10 of the 27 commissioners, including von der Leyen. Its shift in tone has increasingly led to it siding with far-right forces. The cancellation of the anti-greenwashing law this week came after EPP and far-right lawmakers separately wrote to the European Commission to withdraw the bill. The EPP later celebrated the bill's withdrawal as 'a win for European companies'. Tiemo Wölken, a German MEP from the centre-left S&D grouping who led negotiations of the proposal, said: 'The Commission obviously wanted to fulfil the wishes of the right, and this is what is so scandalous. The EPP is again working with the far right to get rid of Green Deal files, but are pretending they are still in the middle and working with pro-European democratic forces.' The Commission has said it is pursuing an agenda of simplification rather than deregulation, and that its focus on competitiveness does not contradict the environmental aims of the Green Deal. It has also put forward plans to green industry, such as the Clean Industrial Deal, which have been celebrated as driving the energy transition in the EU forward. Sign up to This is Europe The most pressing stories and debates for Europeans – from identity to economics to the environment after newsletter promotion Paul de Clerck, a campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe, said the scale of the cuts in the first omnibus proposal in February showed that the simplification argument was 'basically bollocks'. The Commission's plans postpone corporate sustainability reporting requirements by two years and reduce the number of companies in its scope by 80%; delay corporate due diligence rules by one year; remove a requirement to conduct in-depth impact assessments; scrap a civil liability clause that would make it easier to sue companies; and exclude about 90% of businesses from the carbon border adjustment mechanism. Member states on Monday proposed reducing the scope even further. De Clerck said: 'This is highly relevant because it's the first proposal under the simplification agenda that's been put forward and … it's not just weakening it a little bit, it's slashing it. The heart of the proposal has basically been taken out.' Political support for environment rules has dried up in several wealthy economies in the past year, even as the energy transition gains pace and an overwhelming majority of people say they want governments to cut pollution faster. European businesses have long complained of complex rules that hamper innovation and make it harder for them to compete with foreign companies. 'The Green Deal often overlooked challenges like high energy costs or lengthy and complex permitting procedures,' said Markus Breyer, the director general of the industry association BusinessEurope. 'The current focus on competitiveness reflects a more balanced and pragmatic approach that better aligns climate goals with economic realities.' Critics counter that failing to quickly transition to a clean economy will jeopardise economic prosperity in the medium term, as well as saddling individuals and governments with the cost of climate damages. Contiero said the EU would be 'crushed by larger blocs such as the US and China' if it continued to play by 20th-century rules. 'Investing in the Green Deal means decoupling economic growth from the use of natural resources – that was the essential element that made an awful lot of sense for the 21st century,' he said. 'Abandoning such a critical approach will take away the competitive advantage that Europe could have had.'
The Guardian
34 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Without dignity, leaders fell at Trump's feet in The Hague – and for what? All Nato's key problems remain
Nato's Hague summit was an orchestrated grovel at the feet of Donald Trump. The originally planned two-day meeting was truncated into a single morning's official business to flatter the president's ego and accommodate his short attention span. The agenda was cynically narrowed to focus on the defence spending hikes he demands from US allies. Issues that may provoke or embarrass Trump – the Ukraine conflict, or whether the Iranian nuclear threat has actually been eliminated by US bombing – were relegated to the sidelines. Instead, the flattery throttle was opened up to maximum, with Nato's secretary general Mark Rutte leading the assembled fawning. On Tuesday, Rutte hymned Trump's brilliance over Iran; yesterday, he garlanded him as the vindicated visionary of Nato's drive towards the 5% of GDP spending goal. No one spoiled the party. As the president's own former adviser Fiona Hill put it yesterday, Nato seemed briefly to have turned into the North Atlantic Trump Organization. For Rutte and most of the alliance leaders, however, this was 24 hours of self-abasement with a specific goal. The purpose of this first Nato summit of the second Trump presidency was to keep the US as fully on board as possible with the transatlantic alliance. Nothing else mattered. Any repetition of the shocks that JD Vance and Pete Hegseth delivered to Europe at the Munich security conference in February was to be avoided at all costs. In pursuit of that objective, no humiliation or hypocrisy was too gross. So, was it mission accomplished for Nato? Maybe yes, judging by Trump's generally good behaviour in The Hague. The 5% pledge was 'very big news', he announced. The US was still committed to Nato's article 5 collective-defence doctrine, he appeared to say at his post-summit press conference, though his curious choice of words – 'We are here to help them protect their country' – will not reassure everyone. The leaders have nevertheless emerged with what Henry James called 'the equanimity of a result'. The Nato summit got what it was designed to get. But in every longer term way, this appeasement of Trump solves nothing. In political terms the Hague summit does not mark the resumption of normal relationships, let alone the beginning of a new Nato golden age. Such things are not possible in the Trump era. Politically, the summit was a bunker buster dodged. True, things have not got worse, an outcome that many, including Rutte, will regard as a kind of achievement. However, none of Nato's other preexisting difficulties has been solved. Most remain firmly in place. Of these, four stand out. The first and most immediate is Ukraine. There has been no change in Trump's impatience with Ukraine, his belief in a ceasefire or his unwillingness to renew US military aid. But nor can the other Nato members supply the aid that Ukraine needs. So the war grinds on, in part because of Trump. Some believe the war could even become permanent. 'Rather than assuming the war can be ended through a comprehensive battlefield victory or a negotiated compromise,' the Carnegie Endowment analyst and former Ukrainian defence minister Andriy Zagorodnyuk wrote earlier this month, 'Ukraine and its allies must plan to build a viable, sovereign and secure state under constant military pressure.' Trump would not be interested in that. The second difficulty is Trump's sheer unpredictability. Everything was well choreographed in The Hague, but for how long will this last? No one can say for sure. The world is still absorbing the implications of Trump's impulsive handling of Iran, in which military action was repudiated in favour of diplomacy one day, before war was launched the next, followed by the proclamation of peace on the one after that. The Iran bombing has reminded the US's Nato allies of just how little sway they actually possess over the president, and has underscored the difficulty of second-guessing Trump's actions. This feeds through into the third problem. The commitment to spend 5% of GDP on defence is a policy goal not a present reality. The UK, for instance, aims to get to 5% by 2035, and it will only do so through some jiggery-pokery over what can legitimately be classified as security, as the government's new national security strategy document, published on Tuesday to coincide with the Nato summit, makes clear. Ten years is a long time. Much will change. Trump's successors may be more committed to Nato, or they may be even more unreliable than he is. There could be regime change in other places too. No one knows. Warfare is certain to change, as the drone revolution has shown. Nato needs to be careful not to bring 20th-century assumptions to bear on 21st-century planning. The national security strategy document rightly posits this period as an era of 'radical uncertainty'. Yet investors, including investors in high value hi-tech industries such as defence, abhor uncertainty. Which brings us to the fourth problem. Patching things up with Trump may solve nothing because he marches to his own drum. But the threats do not go away. This means that the European Nato nations and Canada have to forge a viable system of collective defence against hostile threats that is not dependent on the whims of the person in the White House at every turn. That is a very large task. But Washington cannot have a veto on whether the nations of Europe defend themselves against, say, Russian aggressions. There is no real choice in the circumstances. The allies are faced with the huge task of gradually reducing their long dependency on the US's technology and armaments without provoking a complete rupture with the US. At the same time, they must increase their own and Europe's defence capacity. It is a devilishly difficult course, with which Britain's political leaders, never mind Britain's security world, would be profoundly uncomfortable. Yet that is the one on which we are embarked. Martin Kettle is a Guardian columnist
