Is Putin having a ‘rort’ with Ukraine ‘just coz’?

Having an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) is a very big thing. The ICC exists only for the baddest of the bad, or the worst of the worst, as I discovered when staying up half the night to read an extensive (that is lengthy) and fascinating online publication called Understanding the ICC, issued by the ICC, which answers myriad questions. (What can I say? There was power and I was bored with Netflix.)

I highly recommend this document to anyone interested. Warning: there is a lot of disturbing language about the terrible things people do to each other, but that’s why the court exists.

A couple of things struck me about what I learnt. Actually, a couple of hundred things but I will share just two.

The first is that the ICC was mandated only in 2018 to go after the baddest baddies. On December 15 2017, the Assembly of States Parties adopted by consensus a resolution activating the jurisdiction of the court over the crime of aggression as of July 17 2018 and that arrest warrants are issued for individuals, not states or groups or organisations or societies. Therefore there has to be sufficient proof that one person has caused mayhem.

Mayhem, in the case of the ICC, is when an individual can be held accountable “for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, namely the crime of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression”.

I can think of more than a few people who might qualify for the aggression clause, but this does not mean the mere punching of a journalist. The ICC definition is “the planning, preparation, initiation or execution of an act of using armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state”.

“The act of aggression includes, among other things, invasion, military occupation, and annexation by the use of force, blockade of the ports or coasts, if it is considered being, by its character, gravity and scale, a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.”

Vladimir Putin qualifies for this crime, and for the ICC arrest warrant issued on Friday, because “the perpetrator of the act of aggression is a person who is in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a state”.

Incidentally, when Russia invaded Ukraine, I wrote a ranty column for TimesLIVE on how this violated the six UN conditions for “just cause for war”.

Some of these go back to St Augustine of Hippo (the place, not the animal), who in the fourth century wrote: “The eager desire to injure, the cruelty of vengeance, the unappeased and unappeasable mind, the savagery of rebellion, the lust of ruling, and whatever else there is akin, these are the things which are justly censured in warfare.”

If you want to know more, you can read the column online.

My meandering into the meaning of “just cause” was prompted by a memory of mostly obsolete slang terms from my childhood, one of which was “rort” (a fight) and another “just coz”.

As I explained, the latter could be used in many situations:

“Why did you put a silkworm up your nose?”

“Just coz.”

“Why did you set off the fire alarm during assembly?”

“Just coz.”

“Why do you even bother coming to class?”

(Shrug) “Just coz.”

Getting back to the ICC, another point of note is that it does not have its own police force. It relies on the authorities in every member state of the UN to nab the wanted individual and take them into custody.

What this means is that if you see Putin on the road, you are not just permitted but obliged to link arms with him and march him off to the nearest police station, whence he will be transported to a detention cell in The Hague to await trial.

Yes, those accused of crimes against humanity are allowed a fair trial. I wonder what Putin will say in his defence when asked why he did what he did? My guess is he will curl his lip and say: “Just coz.”