U.S. President Joe Biden on Wednesday flatly called Russia’s Vladimir Putin a “war criminal” for the unfolding onslaught in Ukraine, where hospitals and maternity wards have been bombed. But declaring someone a war criminal is not as simple as just saying the words. There are set definitions and processes for determining who’s a war criminal and how they should be punished.

The White House had been avoiding applying the designation to Mr. Putin, saying it requires investigation and an international determination. After Mr. Biden used the term, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said the President was “speaking from his heart” and renewed her statements that there is a process for making a formal determination.

In popular usage, though, the phrase has a taken on a colloquial meaning as a generic term for someone who’s awful.

“Clearly Putin is a war criminal, but the President is speaking politically on this,” said David Crane, who has worked on war crimes for decades and served as chief prosecutor for the U.N. Special Court for Sierra Leone, which tried former Liberian President Charles Taylor.

The investigations into Mr. Putin’s actions already have begun. The U.S. and 44 other countries are working together to investigate possible violations and abuses, after the passage of a resolution by the United Nations Human Rights Council to establish a commission of inquiry. There is another probe by the International Criminal Court, an independent body based in the Netherlands.

“We’re at the beginning of the beginning,” said Mr. Crane, who now heads the Global Accountability Network, which works with the international court and United Nations, among others. On the day of the invasion, his group set up a task force compiling criminal information for war crimes. He’s also drafting a sample indictment against Mr. Putin. He predicted an indictment of Mr. Putin could happen within a year. But there is no statute of limitations.

Here’s a look at how this all works:

Who is a war criminal?

The term applies to anyone who violates a set of rules adopted by world leaders known as the law of armed conflict. The rules govern how countries behave in times of war.

Those rules have been modified and expanded over the past century, drawn from the Geneva Conventions in the aftermath of World War II and protocols added later.

The rules are aimed at protecting people not taking part in fighting and those who can no longer fight, including civilians like doctors and nurses, wounded troops and prisoners of war. Treaties and protocols lay out who can be targeted and with what weapons. Certain weapons are prohibited, including chemical or biological agents.

What specific crimes make someone a war criminal?

The so-called “grave breaches” of the conventions that amount to war crimes include willful killing and extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity. Other war crimes include deliberately targeting civilians, using disproportionate force, using human shields and taking hostages.

The International Criminal Court also prosecutes crimes against humanity committed in the context of “a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population.” These include murder, extermination, forcible transfer, torture, rape and sexual slavery.

The most likely way that Putin could come into the picture as a war criminal is through the widely recognized legal doctrine of command responsibility. If commanders order or even know or are in a position to know about crimes and did nothing to prevent them, they can be held legally responsible.

What are the paths to justice?

Generally, there are four paths to investigate and determine war crimes, though each one has limits. One is through the International Criminal Court.

A second option would be if the United Nations turns its work on the inquiry commission over to a hybrid international war crimes tribunal to prosecute Putin.

A third would be to create a tribunal or court to try Putin by a group of interested or concerned states, such as NATO, the European Union and the U.S. The military tribunals at Nuremberg following World War II against Nazi leaders are an example.

Finally, some countries have their own laws for prosecuting war crimes. Germany, for example, is already investigating Putin. The U.S. doesn’t have such a law, but the Justice Department has a special section that focuses on acts including international genocide, torture, recruitment of child soldiers and female genital mutilation.

Where might Putin be on trial?

It’s not clear. Russia does not recognise the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and would not send any suspects to the court’s headquarters in The Hague, Netherlands. The U.S. does not recognise the authority of the court, either. Mr. Putin could be tried in a country chosen by the United Nations or by the consortium of concerned nations. But getting him there would be difficult.

Have national leaders been prosecuted in the past?

Yes. From the post-World War II tribunals in Nuremberg and Tokyo to more recent ad hoc tribunals, senior leaders have been prosecuted for their actions in countries including Bosnia, Cambodia and Rwanda.

Former Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic was put on trial by a U.N. tribunal in The Hague for fomenting bloody conflicts as Yugoslavia crumbled in the early 1990s. He died in his cell before the court could reach a verdict. His Bosnian Serb ally Radovan Karadzic and the Bosnian Serb military leader, Gen. Ratko Mladic, were successfully prosecuted and are both now serving life sentences.

Liberia’s Taylor was sentenced to 50 years after being convicted of sponsoring atrocities in neighboring Sierra Leone. Chad’s former dictator Hissene Habre, who died last year, was the first former head of state to be convicted of crimes against humanity by an African court. He was sentenced to life.

Published – March 17, 2022 11:47 am IST

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau apologises for the events surrounding Ukraine President Volodomyr Zelenskyy’s visit at a media availability in Ottawa, Ontario, on Wednesday, Sept. 27, 2023.
| Photo Credit: AP

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau apologised Wednesday, September 27, 2023, for Parliament’s recognition of a man who fought alongside the Nazis during last week’s address by Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Mr. Trudeau said the speaker of the House of Commons, who resigned Tuesday, was “solely responsible” for the invitation and recognition of the man but said it was a mistake that has deeply embarrassed Parliament and Canada.

“All of us who were in the House on Friday regret deeply having stood and clapped, even though we did so unaware of the context,” Mr. Trudeau said before he entering the House of Commons. “It was a horrendous violation of the memory of the millions of people who died in the Holocaust, and was deeply, deeply painful for Jewish people.”

Mr. Trudeau repeated the apology in Parliament.

Just after Mr. Zelenskyy delivered an address in the House of Commons on Friday, Canadian lawmakers gave 98-year-old Yaroslav Hunka a standing ovation when Speaker Anthony Rota drew attention to him. Rota introduced Hunka as a war hero who fought for the First Ukrainian Division.

Observers over the weekend began to publicise the fact that the First Ukrainian Division also was known as the Waffen-SS Galicia Division, or the SS 14th Waffen Division, a voluntary unit that was under the command of the Nazis.

“It is extremely troubling to think that this egregious error is being politicised by Russia, and its supporters, to provide false propaganda about what Ukraine is fighting for,” Mr. Trudeau said.

In Moscow, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said earlier this week that the standing ovation for Hunka was “outrageous,” and he called it the result of a “sloppy attitude” toward remembering the Nazi regime. Russian President Vladimir Putin has painted his enemies in Ukraine as “neo-Nazis,” although Zelenskyy is Jewish and lost relatives in the Holocaust.

Speaker of the House Anthony Rota stepped down on Tuesday, September 26, after meeting with the House of Commons’ party leaders, and after all of the main opposition parties called on him to resign.

House government leader Karina Gould said that Mr. Rota invited and recognszed Hunka without informing the government or the delegation from Ukraine, and that his lack of due diligence had broken the trust of lawmakers.

In an earlier apology on Sunday, Mr. Rota said he alone was responsible for inviting and recognising Hunka, who is from the district that Rota represents. The speaker’s office said it was Hunka’s son who contacted NMr. Rota’s local office to see if it was possible if he could attend Zelenskyy’s speech.

The Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies has called the incident “a stain on our country’s venerable legislature with profound implications both in Canada and globally.” (