 Back we're live at three o'clock. I'm Jay Fidel. This is think tech more specifically. This is global connections with Alexander, Mara, who's a law professor. In, wait, Saint Paul, I get that right. No, American University actually over in DC. Okay. And we've been talking about war crimes and atrocities for the better part of a month. And everybody has a comment on it. But it's so far a lot of talk. And we're here. Alexander and me to figure out what what actually is going on in terms of prosecuting war crimes against Alex against Putin and Russia. And, and what is happening in the courts and what could happen in the courts. So I'm really happy to be with you. This is a show I've waited for. And it's about time we got down to the bedrock of what is happening, if anything, and what is going to happen. And what could happen in that context. Welcome to the show, Alexander. Well, thanks. I'm glad to be there. It is a topic of great importance and urgency, I have to say. In Nuremberg, there were 22 defendants 19 of them were convicted, and 12 of them were put to death. But actually they killed 6 million people, which is, you know, a very interesting ratio that although you could say you know there was an international benefit in doing that. The fact is the numbers do not speak highly of the system, because we know that there were many, many more people. And in this case, likewise, the system isn't doing very well. The system in the United Nations, the system in the International Court of Justice, Court of Criminal Justice. And for that matter, you know, the other courts and I am reminded, and I will say one more thing before I open it up to you. About a month ago, a Syrian general was tried in Germany under something called universal jurisdiction. They caught him, they tried him, they convicted him. I don't know what happened after that, but that was that was pretty interesting and that maybe that isn't a point to discuss here. But it also shows that you really, aside from the evidence, you do have to have evidence, you have a trial on war crimes. You also have to have the body of, I mean, the person, the defendant in within your physically within your jurisdiction, and this may be problematic. In any event, a lot of talk. Someone said yesterday that there are 5,000, you know, investigators, 5,000 investigators in Ukraine right now investigating and documenting war crimes. They don't have to do that for me. I've seen it on television every day. I'm satisfied beyond beyond any reasonable doubt. So your thoughts about where we are on the continuum toward actually prosecuting these people, mostly Putin, and actually punishing them. And of course, the big question which we should discuss at some point in this program is, is any of that such a threat to Putin and his generals. So as to slow them down in what they are doing every day, every minute in Ukraine, in terms of further atrocities. So the first question is, what is going on right now? Do we know? Well, yes and no, I think we know some way. We also don't know quite a bit. There's probably a lot going on that will come up as very significant, including investigations, including all kinds of legal proceedings that are not public at this point in time. You were mentioning the International Criminal Court, that is one of the international tribunals that actually is working, has been working very quickly after the invasion started. The prosecutor himself started the investigation and he kind of sent a little message, sort of a signaling to the general public saying it would be nice if somebody would refer that to me. So I actually have a legal basis for it. So by now I think 43 nations referred the Ukraine situation to the court and the pretrial chamber is dealing with it too. That's a slow moving process. I mean, if you look at the Yugoslavia tribunal, that's the most most active in the historical past. Some of those people were tried 20 years after the fact. So we can't expect those to those judges to step in and stop the war many ways. So we were looking at a multitude of things that are happening happening in the international put of justice. There we actually have the strongest legal document that we could get from that word, the issue preliminary measures that basically ordered Russia to stop its war to make sure that any of its agents stop being involved in any action that violates international law and that is actually legally binding. So from the from the legal point of view, if we look at this strictly through the lens of lawyers, everything that can happen is happening relatively quickly. The Council of Europe removed Russia from its membership lists after the reports of atrocities happening. The European Court of Human Rights on the other hand has been looking into all these matters and it recently said it will be looking into matters all the way up to September of this year. So whatever Russia will be doing in Ukraine or in Russia can be looked at from that international legal perspective. Again, will that stop the war also probably not. We have to we have to ultimately say no judges and robes are not the same as spiders and tanks. They have a different role to play but they contribute to resolving that problem. And, you know, before you ask me is I know you will say that isn't that absolutely not not satisfactory. Absolutely it is not satisfactory. We have we have flaws in the system probably more flaws than success stories in many ways. And if you start talking about non tribunals like the Security Council that is an integrated structural flaw that's been sitting there since the 1940s and nobody fixed it. How can Russia sit in the in the governing body that has to step in and stop what they're doing and veto it and basically make make make sure nothing happens in that forum at all. And, you know, I think this is at the at the base of it. It's a flaw in human nature that we have wars and we have invasions like this we have murder mass murder. We have atrocities it's been going on a long time. And I think if we look for a way that that has stopped it is usually by a war where the offending party loses or maybe the other side to that's the way that's the way these issues are resolved by violence. And it's almost as if humanity needs a big brother, a parent in local parentage, you know, somebody will say now you you're acting badly here you're misbehaving, and you must stop I'm going to smack you in the inside of the head. We don't have that, not even close. After the war was over the US and through and the UN through the US has a fair amount of power to do exactly that. You know smack him on the side of the head if they violated norms, but that has disappeared over time and certainly during the Trump administration that the disappearance accelerated. Europe is not together enough to do a whole lot. And the US certainly is not together enough to do with political problems. And so what you have is no big brother no parent no in local parent is nobody to say, stop, you get a psychopath. That's my term of like, like Putin. And, you know, he feels he can do this because he can, whether it's for power, whether it's to a grand eyes, this, you know, go back to the Soviet Union, whether whatever it is, whatever psychological or historical reason, doesn't much matter he's doing atrocities. And it demonstrates that, you know, actually it calls attention to the fact that atrocities have been happening in South America, in Southeast Asia, and in Europe for a long time. And the structures that we have built in and around the United Nations have really not stopped those atrocities they continue to happen. And I think, you know, we are at a kind of inflection point. We really have to stop him. On the other hand, when he gets up and says, hey, don't fool with me, I'm going to do nuclear weapons on you. People are understandably reluctant to do anything. And this is the problem when you're dealing with the psychopath, because he's one, he's one step ahead of you and he has no feelings. And I, I don't know what we can do either in the larger sense to stop him, or in the prosecutorial sense. I agree with you that these war crime trials take a long time. And yes, there has to be evidence evidence takes a long time. And there are jurisdictional issues right all of international law is loaded with jurisdictional obstacles. And the same here. I mean, for example, you know, you say that the Security Council is flawed because Russia sits on the Security Council as a matter of the, you know, original UN Charter. But what about the courts? What about the, you know, international courts? Can Russia foul them up too? Can China foul them up? Are they already impotent? You know, this is not Nuremberg. This is not where you have a big brother. This is a situation where any number of political considerations can intervene and pull the rug out from under these courts. So it's not clear that the evidence will be there. I mean, proven. You and I know about the evidence. We watch it on television, but proven to the satisfaction of the court. We don't don't know about the political nature of the court or the judges for that matter. We don't know about, you know, I told one of our co hosts who feels very strongly about this, that she should simply go to Moscow and make a citizen's arrest. Who is going to take him out of Russia? You know, there's no way he's going to, he's going to get the Brussels or the Hague, no way. And so I feel that, you know, this may or may not be on a track that goes somewhere. So in a perfect world, though, Alexander, if it all works out well, what, what would happen? What are the steps? And what are the possible punishments? Well, let's look at it through different lenses. One is punishment. One is criminal law. How do, who do we go after? How do we go after them? And what's the purpose and outcome? You know, you're talking about the leadership of Russia. You're also talking about those who actually work with Putin in many, many ways. The leadership of the military, civilian administration, the oligarchs, whoever is backing all of this. Who is responsible for this? What extent? That's something that the international criminal court in principle can look at. It's more of a practical question. Will they ever be in a position to actually look at that? Because you need to have defendants in court to actually try them. This court does not try people in absentia. And I think that's a good thing in many ways because it gives defense rights. Even people who are, as you call them psychopaths, have a right to defend themselves in court here. Now, our Rome Court, our Rome Statute Court is different already from the Nuremberg one because it's not big justice. It's not the states that actually one world were to put a tribunal in place. However, well, that worked actually came up with very good solid judgments, but that was a personal matter. I think of the quality of the people who were actually on the prosecutorial side, but also on the judge's side here. The Rome Statute Court is one that is set up to prevent, in a way, by deterring. It didn't work in this context here. But it looks more neutrally at things. It's not judges from the winning side that ultimately see the judgment over those who lose. There is Russian judges on that court as well. There is Russian judges in the international court of justice here. Let me, let me give you a little bit more kind of legalese on that because I think we need to uplift international law in the face of these of the weapons talking right now. Can we turn this around and get back to actually repairing the situation in a way coming up with compensation with responsibility and accountability and then build something better. It's not impossible. If you look at the provisional measures that the international court of justice ordered. It was one of the three was unanimous actually with the Russian and Chinese judges agreeing that both parties have to stop aggravating the situation that was an order issued to both parties. The Ukrainians were not happy about that. They were saying, well, we're not doing any things. But anyway, it was unanimous. When there was was two judges dissenting actually didn't file dissenting opinions but declarations to the judgment. The Russian judge merely said the courts has no competence. It didn't say the Russians are right. They just said this is a case where we don't have to restriction. The reason is because Ukraine used uses the genocide convention basically what they're saying is Russia is using the genocide convention as a pretext for just to find the military operations by saying that Ukraine was violating the rights of people in Donbass in the Donbass region. And therefore Russia had to intervene because Ukraine was committing genocide now Ukraine is arguing in the court that's an abuse because they were not. And therefore the court has jurisdiction that jurisdiction is a little wobbly in my personal opinion. And one of the judges said that actually one of the judges said I'm not sure what do we have jurisdiction but this is so bad we need to order provisional measures, which is a strange way of tackling legal questions. So, you know, I'm contemplating very seriously the question of the international criminal court that I do believe investigations indeed are starting. I have no doubt about that. And look at Karacic look at the loss of it. Nobody thought that, you know, the head of the military in Serbia or the president of the former Yugoslav Republic of Serbia would end up in trial. And they did. Right there's so many factors that can contribute to this since we don't know where this is going it's all a little speculative does a little bit of a speculation. And I can also speculate in a way where that might go. And then ultimately a crucial thing is what do we do with the victims I think that that's a question not just of accountability and compensation and making them whole again. That's also a question of preventing future victimization for the same thing and yes you can look at other major powers that are contemplating similar actions. They're out there, and they're observing the entire package of sanctions and responses and military support and so I'm very carefully and wondering what might happen if they took that step. No, I remember it was after the war was over. And most of it show didn't get tried until after the war was over. After the war is still going on. I shouldn't say war. It's a bad word at the invasion. And the violation of every human right you can think of is going on every day in front of us in front of you and me in front of Western Europe in front of the US US Congress, which is troubled with many, many other things. And so, you know, there seems to be something upside down where we were talking about war crimes that are happening real time war crimes that that are happening today tomorrow the day after. It's almost you know what strikes me is that this is not adequate. The whole concept of it is not adequate. You know, and Mr Putin has made this clear. He has shown us that our system of looking at war crimes is is is archaic. I just wonder, you know, a is there a chance that the UN Charter will be reformed. I would say zero to none. Is there a chance that the war crimes, you know, infrastructure legal infrastructure will be reformed that improved and made more real time zero to none. We have a big problem in our hands and the at the end of the day it goes to that point that I made earlier. And that is the way you solve these problems is with violence. And if you win, then you get to call the shots. And then you say no more of this. And that lasts for maybe one two generations. And then you're back doing it again. You know, we have a flawed species is what we have. And I don't know the solution now I mean we learn the hard way and then we don't. There's a question here though. Let me see if I can wait. The Republic of China is one of the five permanent members. The Soviet Union is not Russia. I don't know if this makes sense Russia sits in the Soviet seat, because it claimed to be the sole legal successor state to the Soviet Union, taking over all the old countries obligations, debts and privileges. Notify the UN Secretary General in a letter on December 24, 1991. UN appears to have done nothing to investigate corroborate or think through the implications. It's simply acquiesced. Now there's an interesting point. It's not the same country. What do you think? It's a very interesting point actually the Ukrainian ambassador to the United Nations brought that up very early on when he was talking in the General Assembly. There's no, there's no clarity as to why Russia is occupying the seat that formerly was the Soviet Union. There's no question of state succession basically and in that area there's a little bit of international law. But in that area a lot of sovereignty comes back in so when there is a large junk and Russia is a larger junk of the Soviet Union basically says we are the successors, and the others have to reapply for membership basically. And that is de facto and ultimately also legally speaking what it is. I think there is no legal way of questioning the legitimacy of Russia's presence as a permanent member in the UN Security Council. The state practice as well as again the principle of sovereignty essentially if you look at a divorce system that one of the divorce was for instance Czechoslovakia which split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Here too, the Czech Republic was agree would be the successor and Slovakia would have to basically come and apply for membership again. In the last year doesn't make a lot of sense in that way, you could probably say all of those should be successes but that's what the status quo of the law is so that that's really not not a solid legal argument but it was a provocative argument produced by the ambassador, the Ukrainian ambassador at that point. I think what makes it interesting is if you put that question to interpret that in front of the General Assembly. I don't know what the vote would have to be but if you put it in front of the General Assembly, you're going to get this pretty much the same breakdown as there was when they try to get a condemnation when they got a condemnation resolution through. And I would say it was, you know, 150 countries out of 200 thereabouts. And the reason is that a lot of countries were were on the same side as Russia or abstained. And this and this means that it's all the much more difficult to take action within the United States. I'm sorry within the United Nations. Russia because Russia has friends there. Russia has allies and has political partners and economic partners and oil partners and so forth, which who are not going to leave it in India is a good example. From a moral point of view, you know, there's no way they can defend what Russia is doing, but from an economic and geopolitical point of view they do. And so there are a lot of countries and far worse than that in Africa and Latin America, who are never going to vote against Russia so even if there was a stark provision in the United Nations Charters saying this could be interpreted against Russia or changed vis-à-vis you know who's on the Security Council, it wouldn't it wouldn't necessarily get a unanimous vote. It's not unanimous when there's a difference between abstaining and saying no and the ones that actually said no we're just five including Russia and not necessarily the strongest when I'm in Eritrea was ever heard about that. And with Korea who wants to be friends with those people, but there were major powers including China and India that abstained in the General Assembly that that's for sure. Now let's talk about an interesting issue, why can we have Russia vetoing all these things in the Security Council and there's I mean usually a local chess club right if a chess player is being accused of violating the rules of chess, would that a chess player didn't be allowed to sit in the chess club's tribunal adjudicating his or her fault? Probably not right one would have to reuse himself or herself. Same thing we have issues in the US Supreme Court right now right, who would have to not sit on certain cases. I wish I wish you didn't you didn't bring that up. It comes back with a vengeance when you talk about Russia how can Russia not not only sit on the Security Council be one of the voices but have the voice to actually throw everything overboard by saying no we veto this. My personal opinion is it should not the Charter says so, but international treaties develop through practice right so what I would recommend if anybody listens to actually does that they should probably think about it. In the United Nations General Assembly were to ask the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion whether Russia should take part in Security Council voting at this point in time, or let alone exercise its veto power. I think would would probably by 15 by 13 votes to two with maybe two abstentions say no it cannot because Charter has to be interpreted, given, you know, new developments essentially in a living fashion as as applied in 2022 and not 1949. Once you have that once you have that advisory opinion, the Security Council could actually move ahead and kick Russia out. Let go fast. It takes a while. Yeah, everybody suggested this publicly. Probably the first one because it's kind of aggressive strategy but it's not impossible. Will it prevent the conflict from going on absolutely not because it will take a long time. And will Russia even if it's kicked out of the Security Council all of a sudden follow Security Council resolutions probably not. So we are building for sure we're building an entire set of legal precedents the legal standards and legal pronouncements that ultimately when this interest the mapping upstate will will kick in with a vengeance. So we should look forward in this respect. I hope so. You know what troubles me is that one of the things that Putin has up his sleeve is this phony baloney settlement, you know, a truce, some kind of negotiated result, even if he said he considers it a win for him, you know, and a surrender for Ukraine. But if there is an agreement. Okay. I just know what is going to happen. Putin is going to insist on the rollback of all the sanctions. And he's going to insist on exoneration for war crimes. I don't know if you'll get that. But that would certainly be on the table. You know, let's the old thing about like Trump, let's leave all this behind. Let's move forward. We don't need to dwell in the past. And what you need to do is forgive us for all the war crimes and let go of all the sanctions. I would myself never ever agree to any of that. But in the context of a Western Europe that would really like to get the oil flowing again and like to get back to some degree of normalcy. They might be amenable to the things like that. Yeah, possibly I think that that's probably also one of the reasons why I think strategic thinking would say let's not negotiate with Putin at persona, but let's see what do we find the way of negotiating with Russia as a legal entity. I mean, he has some more durability to an agreement if it's if it's ever reached if it's just a Putin agreement. I mean he has with Donbass with from here he had agreements there agreements in place that now with the invasion he is clearly breaching. If I was advising so lends me I would say go ahead and sign whatever is it's not going to be legally valid ever heard about the concept of coercion. Right if you sign a document under coercion and being invaded probably sounds like coercion to me, having your civilians killed having your armed forces under attack. So again, long run right even if you agree to sign away parts of his country he says Crimea shall be Russian from now on, go back to the International Court of Justice and say, can you please set this part of the agreement the armistice part of the termination of hostilities part that we stick with we agree to that. But the part with signing our country away was under coercion and small and void and the court will probably side with that. So Russia Russia Russia abide by that decision. Probably not but not Putin and Putin's Russia not but a future Russia might that there might be people you within Russia to think a little bit beyond timbers so I'm assuming there are some people who are not in their 70s that probably a little bit younger. They want to be part of a government in the future where they actually still have a job and they can probably leave Russia and travel somewhere. So I'm sure there's there's tens of thousands hundreds of thousands of educated people who are actually part of the Russian government. Who think very carefully about where this will be going and we don't know where it's going of course there's no prediction that can be made but legally speaking. There's a lot, lots of risks, right, ultimately when this is actually worked up in the courts, however important they look right now, and they do at some point these people can come back with a vengeance I have, I have very strong respect. It's a professional obligation of mine for people in robes. Also because when they put the ropes on many of them actually shit their nationalistic free occupations with things. We have stories that say that about the United States Supreme Court but that's another show. Yeah, that's a different show yet. It's a very specific international tribunal thing actually. And there's good examples for that actually when the former Eastern Europe the former communist countries joined international courts, especially the European Court of Human Rights, their judges were ferocious human rights activists. So these people pushed the agenda in the in a very liberal direction actually coming from recently transition countries. I have a question from another viewer. We're going to go a little over I hope that's okay with you Alexander. Isn't what Russia is this is from Chang Wang you know him isn't isn't what Russia is doing in Ukraine right now bombing hospitals and killing the billions to instill fear we don't know their purpose, but he says to instill fear just outright terrorism. That's not on the point of war crimes but you have a quite an answer to that question. There there's strong indications that bombings of civilian infrastructure including hospitals which are predicted entities of course schools theaters we have seen those do take place now. Maybe because of the lack of ability of the Russian armed forces you could all be by coincidence but the more the more incidents you have the less likely that becomes see we probably have a good basis for saying this there must be a plan behind that it's not just a coincidence. We were crimes we we also have crimes against humanity does actually fall in the in the bracket of crimes against humanity. And we also in the room stack you'd have the crime of aggression. And that was inserted in 2010 actually so the mere fact that attacks with this military Ukrainian territory is in itself an international crime that could bring not just him but anybody who participates in an international crime. So there is a lot of possible I'm not pointing is what is what is happening, deniable on his part. You know, I didn't know they were butchering people in butch up. I didn't know they were blowing up hospitals and, and residential infrastructure I didn't know they were destroying cities and shooting people in the street I didn't know. It's my wayward generals and troops they were just very frustrated with losing and frustrated with being counterattacked, and they just took it in their own hands. It wasn't me. Does he get any traction for that you know isn't there a notion of like vicarious liability. If he knew this was happening as we all do and did for weeks now by virtue of global television. He know well enough to take action to stop it. Is there a notion of vicarious liability when it comes to war crimes. Yes, you actually as a head of state specifically have obligations not to just not commit war crimes but also to stop curtail and terminate war crimes after happening. If you can do that at that point pass criminal responsibility absolutely. Plus the defense sounds very far pitched I mean, even if, even if he would claim that he watched only news from his own Russian TV channels which glorify this as an attack. That is actually a defensive action and the special military operation. We can't claim ignorance on that level, plus it would be counter to what we basically know about what heads of states know about the operation. So, so beyond mere responsibility for for command responsibility basically it is also very unlikely to succeed argument and these churches are not clowns they would look right through this and it's not a real argument. I mean presidents don't have necessarily have responsibility for every war crime that happens if you have a large military operation and a unit somewhere down the line with a captain as the commander commits atrocious war crimes he wouldn't drag the president into court. Unless there was some kind of connection that you can make actually as a prosecutor saying he would or we can condone or supported this. So on this scale where you have lots of things happening. I think that's almost impossible. First, again, the crime of aggression is always there and I cannot assume that any logical thinking judge on an international court would say this, this was done by the public or example of generals and Putin was always against. Let's talk about non United Nations and international court situations. I've had shows about about civil war crimes by banks for example there's a case pending in Paris now against BNP Bank or not see another party for war crimes in Sudan and the war crimes were are that they they supported by way of their financing. There were others who were engaging in war crimes therefore, you know, supporting those war crimes, and the victims through the French prosecutorial system are going after BNP in a French court. Nothing to do with the United Nations or the international court of justice or, you know, any of the international structures just French. And the Syrian general in Germany, just Germany. And so any country. In fact, let me add one more thing before I turn this over to you. And that is suppose I am. And I catch a, don't kill him, I catch him, I catch him, I catch a Russian general, and I charge him with war crimes in Ukraine, my country. And I bring him before a Ukrainian court, newly established under the laws of a sovereign nation that is Ukraine. And I find him guilty, and I punish him accordingly. Can that happen? Can France or Germany or any country in Europe do the same? Absolutely that that's the idea actually accountability in foreign tribunals with the original idea before international law actually kicked in there's jurisprudence from the 1920s about that. Yes, basically. There's the criminal prong here at the civil prong, you shouldn't forget the civil one can we can we sue people for damages for causing certain things. I mean imagine you're Ukrainian homeowner somewhere in the north of Kiev and the house has been bombed upon the orders of a Russian general. And you file a lawsuit, you like Paris currently let's say, Southern District of New York right in the Southern District of New York entertain that civil lawsuit. The answer is, yes, maybe, because we have a statutes called the alien towards statute which is an old one from 1789 which basically gives the United States tourist jurisdiction to try civil cases for towards committed in violation of international law. So basically, a US court can entertain civil action by a foreigner against another foreigner for violation of international law abroad. We have that in the 70s to article was a famous torture case for federal appeals court actually agreed the jurisdiction was there. Now we have the Cuba case versus Royal Dutch Petroleum 2013 with a Supreme Court restricted that very massive. And now there is a US security interest element in there basically so the court defers to the State Department saying would it is case should go forward by and large. Would it is the security interest of the US government in trying these civil cases. Well, let's let's assume that you can, if not in one country than in the other. And, you know, of course, put me on the jury I'm volunteering right now Alexander. I want to be there I have a few things to say. But let's assume it's it's a civil case it's compensation, the one in Paris for example it's compensation and how else do you make an impression on BNP. It's compensation. So this is a very interesting set of circumstances, because Ukraine in many cities we don't even know how many cities yet has been leveled. All the infrastructure has been destroyed every building, you know, for miles around every home, every, you know, public infrastructure destroyed. And what is that worth was they're going to take to rebuild that, and you have virtually thousands of people who have been killed, and who have wrongful death claims aggression that was not in any way justified. And you can say war but it wasn't war it was murder. And then, and then of course you have all the people who were disrupted their lives are completely disrupted, and they were in mortal fear for themselves their children and their and their husbands left back at home. I mean this is all proven already proven. Okay, so what is one life worth. What is one destruction disruption of one life worth. And right now, what is it how many millions of people are refugees trying to find a place in Western Europe, which may or may not work out well for them. You know what, what is that worth one day in one life for one family with millions of families, and this would be against the nation of Russia. It would also be against individuals if you can identify them and, and so forth but mostly against the nation of Russia. The, the, the possibilities are just enormous mind boggling in terms of how much collectively, the result would be, it would be trillions of dollars. Could this happen. And what would what would happen in the world. If these people had legitimate collectible judgments from various jurisdictions against the nation of Russia. It could happen it's it's the question of how many people would pursue such a course of action it's costly as well could that be a strategy could could non governmental entities maybe even government supporting that come up with a litigation strategy that's quite possible I think that that's definitely possible. Could it be trillions ultimately depends on so many national systems I mean some some were millions and millions and damages. Some have punitive damages some don't. I forgot about that punitive damages that's why I want to be on the jury out of anger. And you can sit right next to me. And if they asked for punitive damages they got it, they got it. And so it's not just what a life is worth. It's the punitive damages that you would award any jury would award. And it would be astronomical in any one case. What is torture worth. Yep. And there's no there you can really put a number on that because it's I mean a human life is not quantifiable and our respect, but there's practice again for certain forms of inhumane treatment and torture that human rights courts have actually issued that we didn't refer to that in one way. But I think you just want to disqualify yourself as a juror because you announced what you would decide so you can sit on that jury. But there's also a bigger picture to the whole thing and that just use one word to explain it three year for a sign right the end of World War one, where Germany was hit with exactly that it wasn't civil actions it was it was the victorious they basically saying you cost this you're liable for this, and we'll take your stuff away and reduce you down to rumble, and we'll destroy your economy basically and see where that that as World War two basically. I mean that's that's the narrative of Hitler when he came to power to say, we need to remilitarize we need to secure territory for our population. There you go with the attack on Poland and the Czechoslovakia and Austria and so on. So they're the bigger picture apart from from justifiable understandable revenge and and and seeking responsibility and liability for the impact for the actions. So how can, how can you create a Russia in the future that actually is a better player in international relations. And that should be a major goal and can imagine the administration right now is is very very much looking into that would what 20 years from now what do we, how do we get to a point where we create a Russia that 20 years from now will still be sitting on a pile of nuclear weapons because they're not going to give it up, but will not be a Putin style Russian. So let me go back to a 19 late 1980s early 1990s kind of Russia that was, you know, with those style a little bit more subdued, but still a player in international relations so so in a way and I'm playing devil's advocate in a way, isn't it better if we agree or not agree but at least take into consideration some of the underlying grievances that Putin and his people are uttering to come up with a more stable future, even if we do it with with a lot of minorities and all that. Now that may be the rational approach but I started looking at the options that that are, let's say options I mean collective options that are that are available right now to, you know, to go down the pike on this, on this invasion and and none of them appear very good in the short intermediate term. I mean one is they take over Ukraine and destroy the whole liberal order of the world, and that would happen. Two is, you know, we have we have a war, a war with Western Europe and with the US and maybe even a nuclear war or a biochemical war. He really has made a mess. And I suppose everywhere you look every option at least in the short intermediate term he has made a must that is going to result in disruption of the world of the liberal order and of the global economy. All of those things will suffer no matter what happens that's the way I see it. Tell me I'm wrong. You're absolutely right and we're we are receiving that I mean a regime of sanctions the one that we have right now cannot possibly have a positive impact on the global economy. A situation where three plus million refugees overwhelmed the structure and support system of Eastern Europe and ultimately all of Europe that cannot be good in the long run. And the human suffering cannot be either maybe entire narrative behind that war cannot possibly produce a good result so we definitely in a situation where bad things can happen. I also am a natural born optimist. I think if we get through the stage right now where all these risk factors are out there, we somehow have no prediction, I can't help you there. Russian tanks rolling in Moscow and the general saying enough is enough we get rid of these people. And then mass executions of all the Putin supporters is a possibility that you didn't list. It's also not a good possibility but it is a possibility. I'm thinking we can do especially as international lawyers which I am we have to look towards a possible solution that can help us replace some of the old rules which clearly didn't work. And now we have a war right, not a world war but a substantial war in place so that could be the moment in time where we say this is not working let's throw it out and find something new one. And then maybe also, I mean China is rising in importance India is rising and importance many other nations that we have not regarded Latin America, Africa. Right. They have contributed less than they should have to be international legal order as we know. So maybe some procedures some ideas and norms some concepts from those cultures and traditions and legal systems could actually help us prop up a better system than we have. Why do we need an international court of justice that looks like the US Supreme Court have you ever seen a picture of it. It looks like a Western court right it wouldn't be recognizable as a solid foundational court and many African companies courts in Africa look different. Right maybe it's a good idea to think outside of the box. Well at the end of the day, you know in my legal practice and exposure to the law over my lifetime. I've always been led to the conclusion that international law is a paper tiger that that there's no norms you can count on that people do not countries do not respect it. countries change and ignore it what have you. No one no one feels that there's a strong body of international law out there that will save the world. But there are a lot of international lawyers like you for example, who have been, you know, who have been in the game for all these years, but whose time has come. And the and the the bar so to speak the international law bar, it's time has come. And more than military, more than foreign service and diplomats who sit around tables and try to negotiate truces that are never going to happen. It's the people in the courts the international law, who the people who look at the UN Charter and find a way to fix it. It's the lawyers that can step up and save the day. Do you agree with that. Hopefully, I'm glad. I'm glad that you hold lawyers and such high esteem. I feel, I feel vindicated in many ways. I also agree with you that there's, you know, if you take the big picture and say international law is violated left and right, where is it as a paper tiger or not. Louis Hinkin actually a famous international lawyer said very wisely is international law is followed by almost all nations and almost all situations almost all the time and I'm paraphrasing a little bit it was his words were better than mine. If you pack up and take a circus and fly from Hawaii to Beijing, you fly international because you have a passport if it wasn't recognized if there was no international law accepting that US passports and Chinese passports are good for travel wouldn't work right so there you have already 100 million working situations of international law every single day. And then you can count millions more say international law of course when it falls on its nose, it gets a big bloody nose and right now it has a big bloody nose there's no doubt about it. But many times most of the times almost all of the times actually it works pretty well. And we should always bear that in mind I think if you look at the perspective that is uplifting that would be it. I think we should start from that. Okay, I would make a distinction however between the law attributable to international travel and the law attributable to affecting international war. Absolutely. Absolutely. I need you Alexander. Well thanks very much I hope we can do this again because I'm telling you now it's not going to. It's not going to get better right away and it will change and very possibly for the worst and we need to examine, you know, a status report on on these cases these tribunals. And of course violations of human rights and atrocities which are so so so disruptive. Oh absolutely I'm not predicting things usually but I would predict at least 20 good years of shows and this particular issue. You think about World War two it's still the subject of entered. I shouldn't say entertainment but documentaries and books by the thousands examining what happened 70 years ago. And this this what what is happening here in the past month will be the subject of all kinds of examination for the rest of our lives and beyond isn't it true. The whole world will be reexamined. Absolutely. There was a trap you know international tribunal sitting in Switzerland actually about 20 years ago less than 20 years ago. There was still working on allocating rightful owners of bank accounts and vaults and so on that we're sitting in Swiss banks that were all Jewish accounts and Jewish valuables. And I will have the only job of trying to find the legitimate heirs to that many, many of them of course were dead in concentration camps, 40 plus years before that happened. So international auto doesn't move fast but it's it's still working on reconciling. I hope human values with inhuman actions. Yeah, that's all we can count on that with the war crimes phenomenon that you and I have been discussing. These phenomena will last for many, many generations to examine what happened here. Thank you so much, Alexander. Alexander Mara. And where are you now? Phoenix. Phoenix. Okay, just checking up. Thank you very much for joining me today. I look forward to our next discussion. Thank you. It was great to be an undershift. Aloha. Thank you so much for watching think tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn and donate to us at thinktechhawaii.com. Mahalo.