Can International law survive Putin’s war?

• By Denys Honchar

For centuries, war has been humanity’s cruel constant. It evolves with our technology and politics – but so does our effort to restrain it. Out of the wreckage of Europe’s bloodiest battles, we built rules to spare civilians, protect cultural heritage, and hold commanders accountable. That’s the essence of international humanitarian law (IHL) – a framework meant to bring a measure of order to the chaos of conflict.

But in 2022, when Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, that framework began to crack.

The war has become the largest and most brutal conflict Europe has seen since World War II. Yet it’s also become something else: a catalyst. A stress test. A mirror reflecting just how unprepared our existing laws are for 21st-century warfare – and how urgently they need to change.

A legal system born in blood

Modern IHL dates back to 1864, when Swiss humanitarian Henry Dunant, horrified by the aftermath of the Battle of Solferino, inspired the creation of the First Geneva Convention. That treaty set the groundwork for the humanitarian principles we still rely on today.

Over time, the law evolved through new agreements:

• The 1907 Hague Conventions, regulating the conduct of hostilities

• The 1949 Geneva Conventions, which remain the backbone of IHL

• Additional protocols in 1977 and 2005

• The 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons

• And the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions

These treaties aimed to curb the worst impulses of war. But it wasn’t just treaties that advanced the law – it was also tragedy.

The genocides in Rwanda, Bosnia, and Darfur pushed the world to establish international tribunals that prosecuted war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. While their verdicts aren’t binding sources of law, they set legal precedents that shaped how IHL is interpreted and enforced.

In this interview Andrew Mitchell focuses not only on the need to stop Russian aggression rather than negotiate with it, but also on what Ukraine should look like after the war.

That movement culminated in 1998, when more than 120 countries adopted the Rome Statute, creating the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC was tasked with prosecuting the most egregious crimes of war, regardless of borders or politics.

But for decades, the ICC’s influence remained limited. Major powers like the United States, China, Russia, and Israel never ratified its statute. Realpolitik often trumped the ideals of justice.

Then came Ukraine.

The Geneva Conventions never imagined the world we live in now.

A historic warrant and a global wake-up call

In 2023, the ICC did the unthinkable. It issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin – a sitting head of state and leader of a nuclear power. The charge: orchestrating the unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children. A similar warrant was issued for Maria Lvova-Belova, Russia’s commissioner for children’s rights.

It was a legal earthquake. For the first time in history, a nuclear-armed president became a wanted man. And for the first time, the mass deportation of children was formally recognized as a war crime by the international community.

These weren’t symbolic gestures. They were legal milestones – and they underscored just how radically this war is reshaping global justice.

Documenting war in real time

Ukraine is fighting not only on the battlefield, but in the courtroom of global opinion. And it’s using 21st-century tools to do so.

Drones. Smartphones. Satellite images. Encrypted databases. Never before has a nation under siege so systematically documented war crimes in real time. Civil society groups and government agencies are collecting and verifying evidence daily. The sheer volume – and quality – of data may set a new standard for future investigations.

This digital trail is already informing cases at the ICC and other bodies. It’s also exposing the limits of existing law.

What do we do when missiles knock out an entire country’s power grid in the dead of winter? When cyberattacks disable hospitals? When armies use social media to spread disinformation as a weapon of war?

The Geneva Conventions never imagined this world. But this is the world we live in now.

Toward a New Legal Order

Russia’s actions have shattered any illusion that IHL is fully equipped for modern warfare. Its missile strikes on apartment blocks, maternity wards, and energy infrastructure have tested every provision in the legal playbook – and often left those provisions looking outdated or toothless.

But something else is happening, too.

Legal scholars and diplomats are rallying behind the idea of a special tribunal on the crime of aggression against Ukraine. Such a tribunal, if created, would not only fill gaps in existing law – it could reshape how aggression is prosecuted for generations to come.

Meanwhile, the ICC’s action against Putin is breathing new life into the principle of individual accountability, even for the most powerful leaders. And it’s nudging other countries – many of which had remained on the sidelines – to consider ratifying the Rome Statute or reforming their national laws to better align with IHL.

This war may ultimately do what no treaty or tribunal has done before: force the world to take international humanitarian law seriously.

War as a turning point

Russia’s war in Ukraine is a humanitarian catastrophe. But it’s also a legal turning point – one that could define how the world handles war in the decades ahead.

It is prompting uncomfortable questions. Can international law keep pace with the weapons of tomorrow? Can autocrats be held to account? Can justice still matter when the bombs are falling?

If the answer is yes, it will be in part because Ukraine refused to suffer in silence – and because the world, finally, listened.

• This article was originally published in www.kyivpost.com

Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. ( Syndigate.info ).