The European Parliament voted this week to support a special tribunal to prosecute Russian leaders for the crime of aggression against Ukraine. Fletcher and Octavio dig into what such a court would actually mean, why existing legal mechanisms fall short, and what all of this tells us about the future of international justice.
El Parlamento Europeo aprobó esta semana una resolución que apoya la creación de un tribunal especial para juzgar a los líderes rusos por el crimen de agresión contra Ucrania. Fletcher y Octavio exploran qué significaría realmente este tribunal, por qué los mecanismos legales existentes no son suficientes, y qué nos dice todo esto sobre el futuro de la justicia internacional.
8 essential B2-level terms from this episode, with translations and example sentences in Spanish.
| Spanish | English | Example |
|---|---|---|
| impunidad | impunity | La impunidad de los líderes que ordenan guerras debilita todo el sistema de justicia internacional. |
| agresión | aggression | El crimen de agresión consiste en planificar o ejecutar un ataque armado contra otro estado sin justificación legal. |
| rendir cuentas | to be held accountable / to answer for one's actions | El objetivo del tribunal es que los responsables de la guerra rindan cuentas ante la comunidad internacional. |
| jurisdicción | jurisdiction | La Corte Penal Internacional tiene una jurisdicción limitada cuando se trata del crimen de agresión. |
| sanción | sanction | El Parlamento Europeo pide que las sanciones contra Rusia permanezcan hasta que se implemente el acuerdo de paz. |
| disuasión | deterrence | Algunos expertos creen que la existencia del tribunal tiene un efecto de disuasión sobre otros líderes. |
| interlocutor legítimo | legitimate negotiating partner | Un líder acusado de crímenes de guerra tiene dificultades para ser reconocido como interlocutor legítimo en las negociaciones. |
| en ausencia | in absentia | El tribunal podría dictar una condena en ausencia si el acusado se niega a comparecer. |
The last time the world tried to build a court from scratch to put heads of state on trial for starting a war, it was 1945, and there were Allied soldiers still in Germany.
Esta semana, el Parlamento Europeo aprobó una resolución que apoya la creación de un tribunal especial para juzgar a los líderes rusos por lo que se llama el crimen de agresión contra Ucrania.
This week, the European Parliament passed a resolution supporting the creation of a special tribunal to prosecute Russian leaders for what is called the crime of aggression against Ukraine.
And right away I want to slow down there, because "crime of aggression" is one of those legal terms that sounds self-explanatory but actually carries a very specific, very contested meaning.
Exactamente.
Exactly.
Un crimen de agresión, en el derecho internacional, es cuando un líder político o militar planifica o ejecuta un ataque armado contra otro estado sin justificación legal.
A crime of aggression, in international law, is when a political or military leader plans or carries out an armed attack against another state without legal justification.
No es solo matar civiles.
It's not just killing civilians.
Es la decisión de ir a la guerra.
It's the decision to go to war.
So it's targeting the architects, not just the soldiers who carried out the orders.
Eso es.
That's right.
Es el crimen más alto, el que hace posibles todos los otros crímenes.
It's the highest crime, the one that makes all other crimes possible.
Por eso en Núremberg, en 1945, los aliados llamaron a la guerra de agresión nazi "el crimen supremo internacional."
That's why at Nuremberg in 1945, the Allies called the Nazi war of aggression "the supreme international crime."
I covered the Milosevic trial for a period, back in the early 2000s, and even then the question of who actually orders a war versus who commits atrocities during one was never clean.
Y ahí llegamos al problema central.
And that's where we get to the central problem.
Tenemos la Corte Penal Internacional, que puede juzgar crímenes de guerra y crímenes de lesa humanidad.
We have the International Criminal Court, which can try war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Pero el crimen de agresión es diferente: la CPI tiene una jurisdicción muy limitada para este crimen específico.
But the crime of aggression is different: the ICC has very limited jurisdiction for this specific crime.
Walk me through why.
Because I think most listeners would assume the ICC exists precisely for moments like this.
Para juzgar el crimen de agresión en la CPI, ambos países tienen que ser miembros del tribunal y haber aceptado esa jurisdicción específica.
To prosecute the crime of aggression at the ICC, both countries have to be members of the court and have accepted that specific jurisdiction.
Rusia no es miembro de la CPI.
Russia is not a member of the ICC.
Por tanto, legalmente, la CPI no puede perseguir este crimen contra líderes rusos.
So legally, the ICC cannot pursue this crime against Russian leaders.
Russia withdrew from the Rome Statute in 2016, actually, right around the time Crimea became an international issue.
That timing was not a coincidence.
Para nada.
Not at all.
Así que la idea detrás de este tribunal especial es crear algo nuevo, fuera de la CPI, que tenga la autoridad legal para juzgar exactamente este crimen.
So the idea behind this special tribunal is to create something new, outside the ICC, that has the legal authority to prosecute exactly this crime.
Which sounds almost like how Nuremberg was constructed.
Not an existing institution.
A purpose-built court for a specific set of crimes.
El paralelo es tentador, pero hay una diferencia importante: en Núremberg, los aliados habían ganado la guerra.
The parallel is tempting, but there's one important difference: at Nuremberg, the Allies had won the war.
Tenían a los acusados en custodia.
They had the defendants in custody.
Aquí, Putin sigue siendo presidente.
Here, Putin is still president.
Nadie lo tiene bajo arresto.
Nobody has him under arrest.
Which raises the whole question of whether a court without the ability to actually bring someone to trial is more than a symbolic gesture.
Es una crítica justa.
That's a fair criticism.
Pero hay que entender que el simbolismo en el derecho internacional tiene un peso real.
But you have to understand that symbolism in international law carries real weight.
Una condena en ausencia, o simplemente la existencia del tribunal, cambia lo que Putin puede hacer: adónde puede viajar, con quién puede negociar.
A conviction in absentia, or simply the existence of the tribunal, changes what Putin can do: where he can travel, who he can negotiate with.
The ICC already issued an arrest warrant for Putin in 2023, for the deportation of Ukrainian children, and he did cancel at least one international trip because of it.
So it's not purely theoretical.
Exacto.
Exactly.
Y la resolución del Parlamento Europeo también pide que las sanciones contra Rusia permanezcan hasta que se implemente completamente un acuerdo de paz.
And the European Parliament's resolution also calls for sanctions against Russia to remain until a peace agreement is fully implemented.
Eso es un mensaje político muy claro: no habrá normalización fácil.
That's a very clear political message: there will be no easy normalization.
And that's where this gets genuinely complicated, because there are also peace negotiations happening, and you can imagine a scenario where the push for this tribunal actually complicates a deal.
Sí, es la tensión clásica entre la justicia y la paz.
Yes, it's the classic tension between justice and peace.
Si amenazas con juzgar a un líder, puede ser que ese líder nunca acepte sentarse a negociar, porque sabe que al final del camino hay un tribunal esperándolo.
If you threaten to prosecute a leader, he may never agree to sit down and negotiate, because he knows that at the end of the road there's a tribunal waiting for him.
We saw that in the Balkans.
Milosevic handed himself over partly because the Serbian government needed international legitimacy.
But it took years, and he died before the verdict.
Y eso es lo que algunos críticos dicen: que estos tribunales no sirven realmente para hacer justicia a las víctimas, sino para satisfacer las necesidades políticas de los vencedores.
And that's what some critics say: that these tribunals don't really serve justice for victims, but rather satisfy the political needs of the victors.
Yo no estoy del todo de acuerdo, pero el argumento tiene fuerza.
I don't entirely agree, but the argument has force.
The victors' justice argument.
It's been around since Nuremberg itself.
The Japanese later pointed out that the Tokyo trials didn't include anyone answering for Hiroshima.
El problema de la justicia internacional es que siempre opera en un mundo desigual.
The problem with international justice is that it always operates in an unequal world.
Los países poderosos tienen más capacidad de evitar estos tribunales que los países pequeños.
Powerful countries have more ability to avoid these tribunals than small ones.
Eso no significa que no sirvan.
That doesn't mean they're useless.
Significa que son imperfectos.
It means they're imperfect.
Right.
And the alternative to an imperfect tribunal isn't a perfect one.
It's impunity.
Eso es exactamente lo que yo diría.
That is exactly what I would say.
La impunidad tiene un coste enorme, no solo para las víctimas directas, sino para el sistema internacional entero.
Impunity carries an enormous cost, not just for the direct victims but for the entire international system.
Si no hay consecuencias por invadir un país, otros líderes toman nota.
If there are no consequences for invading a country, other leaders take note.
The deterrence argument.
Though you'd need to believe that leaders calculating the risk of a war are actually weighing international legal consequences, and I'm not sure history backs that up.
Puede que no lo pesen en el momento de la decisión.
They may not weigh it at the moment of decision.
Pero sí lo pesan después, cuando intentan moverse por el mundo, cuando necesitan aliados, cuando quieren ser reconocidos como interlocutores legítimos.
But they do weigh it afterward, when they try to move around the world, when they need allies, when they want to be recognized as legitimate negotiating partners.
Ahí es donde el tribunal tiene poder.
That's where the tribunal has power.
And from Europe's perspective, there's another dimension here: this vote is the EU asserting that it has a role in shaping what post-war justice looks like, at a moment when Washington's commitment to Ukraine has been, let's say, unpredictable.
Completamente.
Completely.
Europa está diciendo: si Estados Unidos se retira del escenario, nosotros seguimos aquí.
Europe is saying: if the United States steps back from the stage, we are still here.
Este tribunal es también una señal de que Europa no va a dejar que la historia se reescriba.
This tribunal is also a signal that Europe will not allow history to be rewritten.
The resolution also says sanctions stay until peace is fully implemented.
Not until a ceasefire.
Until the agreement is implemented.
That's a much higher bar.
Es una posición muy dura.
It's a very tough position.
Y refleja una experiencia dolorosa: después de Minsk I y Minsk II, hubo acuerdos y el conflicto continuó.
And it reflects a painful experience: after Minsk I and Minsk II, there were agreements and the conflict continued.
Esta vez, el Parlamento Europeo quiere que haya garantías reales, no promesas.
This time, the European Parliament wants real guarantees, not promises.
Which brings up a question I've been sitting with: can you have a genuine peace negotiation while simultaneously building a tribunal to prosecute the people you're negotiating with?
Esa es la pregunta del siglo, Fletcher.
That is the question of the century, Fletcher.
Y no tiene una respuesta fácil.
And it has no easy answer.
En Colombia, por ejemplo, negociaron la paz con las FARC y tuvieron que diseñar una justicia especial para que los guerrilleros aceptaran el acuerdo.
In Colombia, for example, they negotiated peace with the FARC and had to design a special justice system for the guerrillas to accept the agreement.
Sacrificaron algo de justicia para obtener la paz.
They sacrificed some justice to obtain peace.
The Colombia comparison is actually a good one.
The Special Jurisdiction for Peace took years to design, and it still gets criticized from both sides.
But the country is not at war.
Exactamente.
Exactly.
Y creo que eso nos dice algo importante: no existe el tribunal perfecto, no existe la paz perfecta.
And I think that tells us something important: there is no perfect tribunal, there is no perfect peace.
Lo que sí existe es la impunidad, que es la peor opción de todas.
What does exist is impunity, which is the worst option of all.
And now a resolution exists.
Not a court, not an indictment.
A resolution.
The road from this week's vote to an actual tribunal with actual jurisdiction is long, and there's no guarantee it gets built.
Cierto.
True.
Pero la historia de la justicia internacional siempre empieza así: con una resolución, con una declaración, con una idea que parece imposible.
But the history of international justice always starts this way: with a resolution, a declaration, an idea that seems impossible.
La CPI misma parecía una utopía hace treinta años.
The ICC itself seemed like a utopia thirty years ago.
Ahora existe y tiene más de ciento veinte estados miembros.
Now it exists and has more than a hundred and twenty member states.
That's the view from thirty thousand feet.
On the ground, right now, there are Ukrainians who have been waiting four years for any kind of accountability and may wait another forty.
That gap between the institution and the person is where history actually lives.
Sí.
Yes.
Y hay algo que quiero añadir: este tribunal no sería solo para Putin.
And there's something I want to add: this tribunal would not be just for Putin.
Sería para juzgar la decisión colectiva de una élite que planificó y ejecutó una guerra.
It would be to judge the collective decision of an elite that planned and executed a war.
Eso incluye a generales, a ministros, a asesores.
That includes generals, ministers, advisors.
The architecture of the thing matters.
Nuremberg succeeded partly because it distributed responsibility across the chain of command.
One man at the top is actually easier to escape or survive than a systematic prosecution of the whole apparatus.
Por eso digo que este voto del Parlamento Europeo importa, aunque solo sea una resolución.
That's why I say this vote in the European Parliament matters, even if it's only a resolution.
Pone en marcha una conversación legal y política que no va a parar fácilmente.
It sets in motion a legal and political conversation that won't stop easily.
Y para que haya justicia, primero tiene que haber voluntad de construirla.
And for there to be justice, first there has to be the will to build it.
You just used a construction there I want to come back to.
"Para que haya justicia." For there to be justice.
I hear Spanish speakers use "para que" all the time but I always fumble the verb form after it.
Ah, esto es importante.
Ah, this is important.
"Para que" siempre va seguido de subjuntivo.
"Para que" is always followed by the subjunctive.
Siempre.
Always.
No hay excepción.
No exception.
"Para que haya", "para que sea", "para que los líderes rindan cuentas." Si el sujeto cambia entre las dos partes de la frase, usas "para que" más subjuntivo.
"Para que haya," "para que sea," "para que los líderes rindan cuentas." If the subject changes between the two parts of the sentence, you use "para que" plus subjunctive.
So it's the "in order that" construction.
If I want to say something like "they built this court in order that leaders be held accountable," that's "para que los líderes rindan cuentas." Not "rinden."
Exacto.
Exactly.
Y fíjate que si no cambia el sujeto, usas "para" más infinitivo: "trabajo para aprender español." Pero si el sujeto cambia: "te lo explico para que tú lo entiendas." El subjuntivo marca que es otra persona la que tiene que hacer la acción.
And notice that if the subject doesn't change, you use "para" plus infinitive: "I work to learn Spanish." But if the subject changes: "I explain it to you so that you understand it." The subjunctive marks that it's another person who has to do the action.
That's actually a cleaner rule than I expected.
Different subject, "para que" plus subjunctive.
Same subject, just "para" and the infinitive.
I might be able to remember that.
Don't tell Octavio's mother.
Ella ya no espera mucho de ti en español, Fletcher.
She no longer expects much from you in Spanish, Fletcher.
Pero mira, lo importante es que acabas de entender por qué dijimos "para que haya justicia" y no "para que hay justicia." Eso sí que es un progreso.
But look, the important thing is that you just understood why we said "para que haya justicia" and not "para que hay justicia." Now that really is progress.