Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 7 March 2024
10. Deputy James Lawless asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs his views of the establishment of an international centre for the prosecution of the crime of aggression in Ukraine by Eurojust; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10861/24]
View answer54. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the action he is taking to promote accountability for violations of international law, including international crimes, arising out of Russia's invasion of Ukraine; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10851/24]
View answerI ask the Tánaiste about the establishment of an international centre for the prosecution of the crime of aggression, with a particular focus on Ukraine and Russian activities there, and the suggestion that has been made by Eurojust that such a body be established. Will the Tánaiste outline his views on that proposal?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 and 54 together.
I thank the Deputy for raising this question. The Government has been consistent in the pursuit of accountability for Russia's illegal and unjustified war of aggression against Ukraine. This includes accountability of the Russian leadership responsible for the crime of aggression. Ireland is one of 40 states, plus the European Union, in the core group for the establishment of a special tribunal to prosecute the crime of aggression in Ukraine. Ireland participates in regular meetings of the core group to address the complex legal and practical issues that arise in trying to establish a credible, legitimate and effective tribunal to deal with this crime. Ireland has also welcomed the establishment of an international centre for the prosecution of the crime of aggression in Ukraine by Eurojust. The purpose of the centre is to co-ordinate domestic investigations in other countries into the crime of aggression against Ukraine and preserve and store evidence for future trials. The centre will enable investigations into Russia's leadership to commence while discussions continue on the creation of a special tribunal.
As the first permanent international court with the power to prosecute international crimes, the ICC has a crucial role to play in fighting impunity for international crimes that have been committed in Ukraine. In March 2022, Ireland was one of 43 states to refer the situation in Ukraine to the ICC in order to enable the ICC prosecutor to immediately start an investigation. The Government announced in November a voluntary contribution of €3 million to the ICC in support of its important work across all situations. This is in addition to the voluntary contribution of €3 million made to the ICC in 2022 and Ireland's assessed contribution to the court's budget, which was €1.5 million in 2024.
Ireland is also a founding participant of the register of damage, which will serve as a record of evidence and information on claims of damage, loss or injury caused by Russia's actions in or against Ukraine. The Government views the register as an important first step towards the creation of an international compensation mechanism to hold Russia accountable to victims of its aggression. In addition, Ireland has joined 31 other states intervening as a third party in Ukraine's proceedings against the Russian Federation at the ICJ under the genocide convention.
This is a really important step. As I understand it, Russia is outside the jurisdiction of the ICC, not being a party to the Rome Statute. I think of historical parallels. I am not sure if the Tánaiste is familiar with the book East West Street by Philippe Sands. It is an excellent work for many reasons. It chronicles the two Jewish lawyers who effectively led the Nuremburg trials and developed the concept of crimes against humanity, which phrase did not exist prior to that. Not only did it characterise from a legal perspective the offences but it also gave the world a concept to focus around and prosecute again. I am also mindful of the Eichmann trial in 1961, when Eichmann was repatriated to Israel and put on trial. The trial ran for many weeks and months. The benefit of that trial was that not only was Eichmann brought to justice but it allowed the survivors and the victims of the Holocaust to tell their stories on public record. That gave the world a document that recorded that for perpetuity. It may have given some closure and some relief to the survivors but it also gave international precedent and an international historic record of what had happened, which may not have been possible without the trial. A question always in these matters is whether it is a case of retrospective retribution or preventative pre-emptive steps. Getting in early can stop the apocalypse before it happens.
I thank Deputy Lawless for his insights, which are valuable and important. Ultimately, this is also about accountability of those who perpetrate crimes of this kind against a civilian population and against a country. There must be accountability under international humanitarian law in the case of what is happening in the Middle East and, likewise, in Ukraine. Part of the challenges here have been that the ICC does not have jurisdiction at the moment over the crime of aggression. While Ukraine signed the Rome Statute of the ICC on 20 January 2000, it has not ratified it, meaning that it is not a state party to the ICC. However, Ukraine accepted the jurisdiction of the ICC with respect to genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed on its territory since 21 November 2013 by lodging two separate declarations under Article 12(3) of the statute in April 2014 and September 2015. There is an ongoing debate with like-minded countries as to the best forum in respect of this. Under the Rome Statute, the ICC may exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression in Ukraine if the Security Council of the UN refers the situation there to the court. Given Russia's veto on the Security Council, however, that referral is implausible. I thank the Deputy for raising this matter.
A supplementary point that occurs to me is that while it has historically been difficult to capture evidence for prosecution of these types of crimes, in 2024 we have access to real-time footage, not only from the journalists - we heard the BBC and other respected bodies mentioned earlier - but also from people on the ground, from postings on their own social media accounts. Obviously, there is a certain bias depending on who is behind the camera, but there is a wealth of material available that may be of assistance in such prosecutions. Are steps being taken at the ICC, at the Eurojust centre or elsewhere to record and capture that material in order that it will be available to such a court, should it be established now or even in the future, and that it will be there as an historic record that can be then used?
It is an opportunity that was not there historically but, in the current situation, it is and should be used.
The establishment of the International Centre for the Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression under the aegis of Eurojust gives the opportunity to do just that, to co-ordinate domestic investigations by EU member states and non-EU countries into the crime of aggression against Ukraine and to act as a central repository for evidence of that crime. Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Romania and the US are participating in this initial phase. The Deputy is correct. Already, a significant body of evidence has been established for a range of crimes, particularly the shocking crime of abducting children and taking them into Russian territory. There is far greater capacity now to assemble evidence. That is why we need to resource the international courts and forums. As the Deputy said, even the presentation of the evidence can be of great value to victims and their families. I support that enthusiastically. We will continue to support this in any way we can.
