By Marco Perduca, EUMANS Member.
Demonstrations for "peace" were held in all the countries that immediately decided to support the armed resistance of Ukraine against the Russian aggression [read here the key highlights presented by Marco Cappato, Eumans Co-president, during the demonstration in Milano']. With varying degrees of "pacifism", perhaps more in Europe than in the US - where, however, some thirty Democratic parliamentarians asked Biden to review his military strategy - public opinion has made itself heard against the war.
Being against war does not necessarily mean being for "peace". It would be a long a discussion but, summarizing, it is not logically clear how one can invoke the arrival of peace if those who unreasonably started the war have never not only demonstrated any will to cease fire but also stated that if peace it will be, they are the one who will decide.
If a just war does not exist, here too the discussion would be long, a peace that is not "just", that is, based on super partes justice, will not be able to last long and, in any case, there may be a stabilization but there will be the risk of maintaining alive many of the reasons for the conflict without distinguishing between victims and perpetrators their rights and/or needs.
I have already written about the need to support the various ongoing initiatives, more technical than political, in favor of identifying the chains of command and the political and criminal responsibilities of the systematic and massive violations of international humanitarian law that are taking place in Ukraine. The investigations of the International Criminal Court are progressing and the "situation" has been assigned to the second Preliminary Chamber of the ICC, but without the certainty that the Court can claim jurisdiction, the whole thing could be a dead-end exercise.
Except for a few technical articles, the public and political debate has never really addressed the issue and, with all that has been given to Ukraine, I believe that the time is ripe to ask for something "back": the ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court .
In the final days of the 2014 invasion of Crimea, Ukraine recognized the ICC jurisdiction, a temporary recognition that fell into thin air for, it seems, economic reasons.
The current media and political attention and resources dedicated to the conflict should pretend further accountability, not least because the responsibility of those who sell weapons to a party to the conflict could be extended if those who use them fail to comply with international humanitarian law or if they should fall into the hands of other forces.
Therefore, having clarified that until January next year, (at least the Italian) Parliament will not put to a vote the decision to send more weapons to Ukraine, why not launch a political-diplomatic initiative to persuade Zelensky and the Ukrainian Parliament to accede to the Treaty of Rome which, on the occasion of the vote, could be articulated in a parliamentary resolution to formalize it?