this is bbc news, the headlines: an international charity says the devastating drought in somalia has led to the biggest movement of refugees into kenya, in more than a decade. nearly 70,000 more are expected to arrive by april next year, as somalia edges closer to famine. the democratic candidate for governor in arizona, katie hobbs, has defeated her far—right, trump—backed opponent. democrat victories in arizona and nevada helped them retain control of the senate. counting is expected to continue for several more days before it's clear whether the republicans will win control of the house of representatives. world leaders are gathering in bali in indonesia for a summit of the 620 group of nations.

high on the agenda — the stability of the global economy, the energy crisis and how to address the ongoing war in ukraine. president putin is not attending, but president zelensky will address the gathering by video link. now on bbc news it's hardtalk with zeinab badawi. welcome to hardtalk with me, zainab badawi. global leaders often come together to work for what they hope is the greater good, such as tackling climate change, conflict, and the economic crisis. how far does the world need a new body to put on trial leaders who are accused of widespread and rampant corruption that deprives their citizens of what is rightly theirs? my guest today is the senior us districtjudge mark wolf, who is trying to establish an international anti—corruption court to bring to justice leaders who abuse their power

for private gain. is this an idea whose time has come, or do we already have sufficient levers to bring the kleptocrats to court? judge mark wolf, welcome to hardtalk. thank you. why do you believe that the time has come for an international anti—corruption court, an iacc? as the chair of integrity initiatives international, i and now many others around the world believe the international anti—corruption court is urgently needed,

essentially for three reasons. first, as i could explain, grand corruption. the abuse of public office for private gain by a nation's leaders has devastating consequences that have international impacts. that grand corruption doesn't thrive because of a lack of laws. 181 countries are party to the un convention against corruption. they all have laws making corrupt conduct by their highest officials illegal. but those laws are not enforced in the countries that kleptocrats rule because they control the police, the prosecutors, and the courts. therefore, the international anti—corruption court is needed as a court of last resort to enforce those laws, or a uniform counterpart of them, for countries that are unwilling or unable to do so themselves. but look, there are many dimensions, parties and players involved in corruption. there's political corruption, financial corruption.

i mean, how do you define it? for the purposes of the court, it's political corruption. it's bribery, extortion, money laundering by a nation's rulers. but that's financial corruption perpetrated by politicians. essentially, yes. and it is obviously illegal. it's illegal in every country, and as i said, has devastating consequences. but where the rest of us might fear being punished if we violate the law, the people who rule these countries, these kleptocrats, have impunity, because they won't. .. they control the courts, often corrupt themselves, and won't permit the honest, effective investigation, prosecution and punishment of theirfamily, theirfriends and themselves. but is it reallyjust the politicians? i want to cite you a very recent case, earlier this month in november, a uk subsidiary of glencore, the mining giant, glencore energy uk, was found

guilty of issuing about $310 million in bribes in africa to get access to oil. thejudge, peter fraser, said glencore energy uk's guilty plea represented "corporate corruption on a widespread scale, "deploying very substantial sums of money in bribes. "the corruption is of extended duration "and took place across five separate countries "in west africa." what's the point ofjust pursuing the political leaders and letting the corporates off? we don't. this court would have jurisdiction over somebody who demanded or accepted a bribe and anybody who paid the bribe and anybody who enabled the laundering of that money. so you've asked a very good question, but the company you describe would be within the jurisdiction of the international anti—corruption court, if there wasn't, as there evidently was here in the uk, an effective national prosecution. but that's the point, though. you have to clarify that you said at the outset

that this is this court, in your view, is needed to pursue the kleptocrats, the politicians who perpetrate financial crimes, bribery, extortion and so on. so you now want to say that you could actually pursue the private sector in the court? i was trying to be succinct originally. yes. anybody who conspires with a kleptocrat or another high official within the jurisdiction of the court. all right. anybody who aids and abets that crime, anybody who participates in laundering the money in a criminal way would be subject to prosecution along with the principal, the kleptocrat, in the international anti—corruption court. but if we've got the laws that already exist and we've got international bodies like the 0ecd, which has a very robust anti—corruption charter, you mentioned the united nations convention against corruption, which requires laws criminalising bribery, embezzlement, money laundering and all the rest of it. we have financial services regulatory authorities

in a lot of countries. why notjust, say, strengthen the existing laws, implement them properly, and then we don't need your court? that would be nice. but it hasn't happened, has it? the international community has been far too content to see if the necessary laws are on the books and inadequately interested in assuring that they're enforced. and that's not my personal, idiosyncratic view. it's a criticism or a comment of transparency international and many others. but you say that it's countries where kleptocrats... ..you know, reign and they carry out these acts of corruption. but i put it to you, even in countries such as the uk, established democracies with strong regulatory environments, they turn a blind eye to financial misconduct. a house of commons foreign affairs select committee

injune this year, talking about london and its role in money laundering as a hub, said that there has been "little commitment "of successive governments to tackle the problem "of illicit flows of money from russian kleptocrats". and i fully agree with that. it's a major reason that i'm here again after the pandemic. the international anti—corruption court would operate on the principle of complementarity, so would prosecute only officials of countries that are unwilling or unable to do so themselves. it would create an incentive for the uk, among others... so would you have pursued former british prime ministers? because parliamentary committee says that successive governments have basically turned a blind eye to this. if... there would be a process for determining fairly whether a country was unwilling or unable to pursue it, and if it was determined to be unwilling, then officials of that country would be subject to prosecution

in the international anti—corruption court. all right, so you've made it quite clear that this international anti—corruption the iacc, would be a court of last resort, just as the international criminal court, the icc, in the hague, prosecutes alleged war criminals if their own national systems can't do it. but in the case of financial corruption, you often find, particularly in countries in africa and some in asia, that it's notjust one or two leaders, it's the entire political system that's corrupt. what are you going to do, arrest everybody? no, but i think this is why the court would be focused on the highest officials of these countries and their co—conspirators, because if you want to tackle that endemic corruption, that has to start from the top down. and if you — this was my experience prosecuting corrupt public officials in the united states, in massachusetts, when a corrupt official is removed from office, it creates

the opportunity for the democratic process to replace that person with somebody interested in serving his or her citizens rather than enriching himself or herself. and that person is the best hope for cleaning up the endemic corruption that, as you correctly say, characterises many countries in the world. the endemic corruption that, as you correctly say, characterises many countries in the world. ok, i mean, i should say you've had a distinguished career as a us federal prosecutor in the 1980s, and your public corruption unit won many convictions. you oversaw mafia trials in the us and other cases against public officials. and, and you say that some of the cases you were involved in did kind of pave the way for newer, cleaner skins to take over. but what if you are operating in a country where there is nobody honest to take over or the democratic system will not throw up a new honest leader, butjust more

of the same? well, it's not certain that that would be the result, but there's reason to hope for it. for example, i was doing a lot of work in slovakia. slovakia has a long history of corrupt leaders. an investigative journalist was murdered and that brought into office a current administration that's truly dedicated to combating corruption. it's in battle. and in fact, that's a country that's showing a lot of interest injoining the international anti corruption court, because i believe this administration realises that people who share its priorities and its values may not be in office forever, and they may not have the capacity to deal with the massive corruption themselves. this is also true of moldova, for example. yeah. i mean, you say you would hope that it would throw up new honest leaders, but hope isn't enough, really, is it, judge mark wolf? actually, i think it is. people sometimes ask me if i'm optimistic about creating this court, and i'm more hopeful than i ever was before,

because in the last 18 months, 300 international leaders, world leaders, including 45 former presidents and prime ministers, and one current president, signed a declaration calling for the court, the... can ijust stop you there? that's exactly the point. 45 former prime ministers and 0ne — one current president. yeah. but here... that's not a great deal of global... well, let me... ..support for your initiative. yes, let me carry on. creating this court is now part of — a coalition of countries to establish the court. is now part of the official foreign policy of canada and the netherlands. two weeks from today, they and ecuador are convening in the hague, 57 ministers. they've invited ministers, foreign ministers and their subordinates, from 57 countries. i will be addressing them. there are a number of other countries that have already shown strong interest

because this is still a very embryonic campaign. it has been a concept. now it's beginning to become a campaign. and countries are showing great interest, and notjust northern countries or from the global north or western countries, countries, many countries in africa... the president of nigeria, president buhari, recently said perhaps the time has come for an international anti... but he's about to leave power, isn't he? i mean, he steps down early next year. well, i wish it would have been earlier. you want to engage with the new leaders or the current leaders, surely? and throughout africa, for example, the former prime minister of guinea recently asked tojoin our international campaign. we welcome him. the pressure is bubbling up and this is the way courts and other important initiatives, the landmine—ban treaty, the treaty to ban nuclear weapons... it's coming from the bottom

up and from the top. it's a slow process, isn't it? i mean, in 2016, you set up the ngo — integrity initiatives international, and one of its ambitions was to create this anti—corruption court. this is still very embryonic. well, it, as i say, it's made remarkably rapid progress in the last 18 months and promises to accelerate. but look, there's a long history, you said it, of corruption and cultures of corruption at the highest levels in many countries throughout the world. and it shouldn't be expected there'd be an instant accepted solution to it. but, i mean, even if you were to get some backing for this idea, it's not really going to get off the ground if you don't have the support of the big powers. the united states, china, really, are you? actually, that's not right.

respectfully. that's a common criticism. however, it's axiomatic that kleptocrats do not keep, don't want to keep their ill—gotten fortunes in their home countries. the international consortium of investigativejournalists, for example, provided overwhelming evidence that vladimir putin has laundered hundreds of millions, if not more, into and through switzerland and elsewhere around the world, but particularly switzerland. if switzerland joined this court and russia did not, because putin has committed part of the crime of money—laundering in switzerland, he could be prosecuted in switzerland. if the swiss look at what's happened, looking at what happened in ukraine and decide, "we don't want to prosecute vladimir putin ourselves," they would defer to the international anti—corruption court. all right. but my point about not having the big players, us, china, russia and so on, may cause you problems because,

you know through your own experience, how difficult is it is to go after people accused of financial misconduct and bribery and so on. you need access to financial and telephone records. you need to perhaps authorise wiretaps, conduct search, conduct searches, very complex cases, to try and find the trail of this illicit funds. and if you don't get the cooperation of the big financial powers in the world, it's going to be difficult. well, i'd say the following. first, although it has been said, "oh, how are you going "to get the evidence?" yeah. there's a lot of evidence that's available, there's just no place to use it. in the united states foreign corrupt practices act for prosecutions — and their 0ecd counterparts — you can only prosecute the individuals and organisations who pay bribes, not the people who take them. there are investigative journalists who produce evidence, there's the international anti—corruption

coordinating committee here in london that facilitates money—laundering investigations. there are whistle—blowers. mm—hm. there's. .. these... there's been a lot of evolution. so you think you could build up a case? yes. well, and in fact, the united states, well, i don't expect is going to support this in the short run. 0ne, they do facilitate money laundering investigations. they helped bill browder prove that particular russians stole $231 million from him. so there's cooperation and i'll tell you something else. yep. in terms of making this a reality, there's certain positive benefits to not having the support of the united states, because many african countries particularly, but others in the global south, resent the big shots in the global north making the rules and expecting them to follow them. but this is an effort that really has substantial support from these countries — malaysia and africa,

latin america. so a very different model, then, from the icc, the international criminal court, based in the hague, which pursues those accused of crimes against humanity or war crimes and human rights abuses, because i want to tell you what professor matthew stephenson of harvard university says in relation to your idea for an international anti—corru ption court. he says the icc, the international criminal court, suggests the limits rather than the promise of an international anti—corruption court because he says it would require a radical re—conceptualisation of the icc model, one that states have never shown a willingness to embrace. i brought... i've introduced mr stephenson to some of his work in corruption, but he's never investigated or prosecuted a case the way

many prosecutors have. the international anti—corruption court would be different than the international criminal court in some very significant material ways. the international criminal court is criticised because it's prosecuted — exclusively, almost — africans. exactly. it goes after the weaker states, yeah. that would not be the case with the international anti—corruption court. i think the international criminal court is too much criticised. it's done more good than it's given credit for. but africans have been prosecuted exclusively. a, that's where the crimes within the jurisdiction of the international criminal court have largely occurred — crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide. grand corruption exists throughout the world. that's one. two, the international criminal court can have any investigation vetoed by the un security council. china vetoes investigations of north korea. mm—hm. it is our present intention to create this court outside

of the united nations so there wouldn't be this opportunity for the big political powers to protect their friends and allies. so you are very closely involved in ukraine and you're obviously very distressed by what's happening to your friends in the country because of the russian war there, so given what you've just said now, that you would like to see, judge mark wolf, russians being pursued. you have said in the past that human rights abuses and financial corruption go hand—in—hand. president putin and his inner circle are very wealthy as well as being accused of these human rights abuses. so, how do you think that justice would be best served in the case of ukraine and trying to pursue president putin and those around him? yes. and i've been talking about russia, but the international anti—corruption court would focus on far more than putin and russia. but with regard to ukraine, as i've written and others have said, there should be a special international tribunal to try putin and his accomplices

for the crime of aggression. there are clearly barbaric war crimes being committed in ukraine, but putin, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to convict him personally of those crimes in the international criminal court, because to do that, you have to prove that somebody committed or directed it himself. so you would... but, but... so you're looking at something which has been discussed by the likes of gordon brown, former british prime minister for an international military tribunal modelled on the nuremberg ones... yes, essentially. ..for the nazi leaders, to try nazi leaders. essentially... the crime of aggression is invading another country not in self—defence. i think there's overwhelming evidence that putin's committed that crime. that crime cannot be... he cannot be prosecuted in the international criminal court for that. but a special tribunal — and there are about three efforts to create it

in different ways — would be a place to hold him and his accomplices accountable because once those accomplices, the people close to him... yep. ..feel two things. one, that putin may turn on them and remove them in some fashion, and, two, that they may have to go to prison if they stay loyal to him, might want to become witnesses against putin and, indeed, find some way to remove him and stop this barbaric conduct themselves. all right. you've also been working with people like yegor sobolev, who fights corruption in ukraine itself, because of course there's been a lot of attention on that. the european union has talked about this in the past. he was chair of parliament's anti—corruption committee in ukraine, so to what extent have you got to make sure that you use your influence with the likes of yegor sobolev to tackle corruption in ukraine itself, too? yegor and i were collaborating. i helped him in his successful effort to create a high anti—corruption court, a special national anti—corruption

court for ukraine. and in the process of selecting thejudges and mentoring him. he is now fighting, and literally, i havejust today... well, he's now down in kherson. he's been fighting. in kherson. but this is all organic. the international anti—corruption court is by no means the only thing that's needed. these special national anti—corruption courts are needed, but i'll tell you, thejudges of the ukraine national anti—corruption court and their special investigators for corruption support the creation of the international anti—corruption court because they're not mature enough yet to hold their highest officials to account, and the oligarchs, and when they do bring a case, they're accused

of partisanship. and so they have said to me, if we could refer a case to the international anti—corruption court and somebody very powerful, one of these oligarchs or somebody that the oligarch has bribed gets convicted, it couldn't be fairly accused of being a partisan political prosecution. finally and briefly, judge mark wolf, you want to build this international anti—corruption court. what are the odds on that happening and how soon? and why, at 76, is this still so important to you? this is important to me because grand corruption�*s associated with the worst abuses of human rights. supporters of this court are risking their lives. yegor sobolev is fighting in kyiv in part to eliminate corruption. vladimir kara—murza is imprisoned in russia for having criticised the invasion — he's a supporter of this court. and the family of the murdered maltese journalist,

daphne caruana galizia, who was blown up because she was investigating and exposing corruption in malta, called for the creation of this court. and i don't want to... ijust don't want to disappoint them. and we'll see it soon, do you think? it may not be soon, but i expect we can hope we're going to see it. i'm hopeful. judge mark wolf, thank you very much indeed for coming on hardtalk. thank you. hello there. 0n the whole, it was a relatively quiet start to our working week, but a change is on the way, and you can see that

as we closed out the day in cornwall on monday with this blanket of cloud a bit like closing the curtains across the south—west and, yes, there's a weather front that's bringing some wet and windy weather. you can see the extent of the cloud on the satellite picture actually, and it's this frontal system tied in to an area of low pressure, which will continue to move further north and east. so, for the next few hours, be prepared for some heavy rain, but more importantly, some gale—force gusts of winds — gusts in excess of 50—60mph as that rain continues to push its way steadily north and east. so, first thing in the morning, the rain heaviest perhaps across parts of dorset, moving up through hampshire. then that's going to drift its way steadily northwards through the east wales, into the midlands, to north—west england, and eventually, it'll push its way steadily north and east. there will be quite a clearance behind to some sunshine and a scattering of sharp, blustery showers in the far south—west. the winds will be a feature, but the strongest gusts still with that rain, so gusts in excess of 55mph plus in the northern isles as that rain pushes its way

steadily northwards. temperatures, 11 to 1a degrees, about where they should be for the time of year, but obviously, it'll feel cooler with the cloud, the wind and the rain. so, the rain pushes its way steadily north, we'll see a cluster of showers through wednesday night across west and south—facing coasts, but where we do have some clearer skies, we'll see low single figures, so it could be a bit of a chilly start to our wednesday morning. 0n the whole, wednesday is a chance to get a little bit of a breather in. there will be some showers across the south and the west first thing, slowly improving into the afternoon before the next system moves in, more wet and windy weather still yet to come. a cooler day, top temperatures between 10 and 13 celsius. now, it looks likely that we'll see another spell of wet and windy weather through the latter stages of wednesday into thursday before a little ridge of high pressure fills in behind — that's worth bearing in mind. so, all in all, as we close out this week, it looks likely that we will see another unsettled day on thursday, friday, the best of the dry

weather, and it's probably a good opportunity to make the most of it. the weekend looks wet and windy once again.

this is bbc news, with the latest headlines for viewers in the uk and around the world. i'm sally bundock. global leaders gather in bali for the g20 summit, with a plea from the host nation for unity and concrete action. the world is facing extraordinary challenges. we are facing a crisis after crisis. "now is the time" to end the russian invasion of ukraine. president zelensky is due to appeal to his counterparts via video link. i'm karishma vaswani. reporting live from bali, where the g20 summit is officially under way. and climate change will play

high on the agenda. arizona goes blue, with projections showing democrat katie hobbs has beaten