welcome to hardtalk. i'm stephen sackur. the international criminal court's arrest warrant for vladimir putin on war crimes charges represents a massive boost for advocates of internationaljustice, or does it? moscow has dismissed the move as political and a significant number of governments and people around the world appear to agree. and, of course, putin will not be removed from office, still less arrested. well, my guest is the world renowned human rights lawyer geoffrey robertson. is the campaign for global cooperation to uphold international law and human rights going backwards?

geoffrey robertson, welcome to hardtalk. how big a deal is the icc�*s decision to charge vladimir putin with war crimes and issue an arrest warrant? it's very important because it has removed a credibility that he would otherwise have had. he is banned now from 123 countries. so, in addition, he may well end up in the hague, not soon, of course, but in years to come, there may be a coup and he may, like milosevic,

be handed over for... to ease sanctions. he may, in time, he's only 69, be stumbling into the dock like some old nazi, as there are at the moment in germany, so it is not without significance. i'm imagining people listening to you in moscow and giving a look of complete distain to what they have just heard. the fact is vladimir putin is still president of russia, comfortable in the kremlin. you say he can't travel. actually, i spoke to a member of the duma, the russian parliament, just a few days ago — yevgeny popov — who said, "forget it. "of course, vladimir putin is still going to travel. "he's going to travel and visit his friends, "as he wishes to do." well, we'll see about that. those 123 countries that have signed up to the international criminal court have an obligation to arrest him if he comes

within their borders... what does that mean, though? because let's take one example, south africa. yes. putin is supposed to be going there in the summer fora meeting, a brics summit, as they call it. he is. are the south africans, in your view, legally obliged, without any choice whatsoever, to arrest him if he steps on their territory? that is the view of their supreme court. it wasn't the position taken when bashir visited a year or so ago. the president of sudan. yes. also indicted by the icc. he was also indicted and they let him go. that's my point. whether they will this time, the court said they were wrong, and whether they will obey the rule of their own law has yet to be seen. so, these questions will arise. the very fact that they will arise is, i think, an important stage because putin, without any reasonable doubt, is guilty of the international crime of aggression. he's a man who... well, let me stop you there. as you call it,

the international crime of aggression is not something that he can be tried for by the icc. it's not. if i may say so, it's an irrelevance when it comes to the icc. well, with the icc, he's guilty of command responsibility, which is the doctrine that developed from the second world war, of endorsing the crimes that he knew about. you can see them on television, the bombing of civilians, children in buildings. he's guilty of the crime that he's been charged with because he has command responsibility of the war... yes. of the war crimes. we should say that at this stage, karim khan, the chief prosecutor at the icc, has chosen to specify the crime, which concerns the transfer and deportation of thousands of children from ukrainian territory to russian territory. the kidnapping of children,

which is a crime long damned by the geneva convention... but again, to be clear, and your legal experience really matters here, because you have a long association with war crimes investigations, putin cannot be tried in absentia by the icc, can he? no. he literally... he physically has to be in their hands... the united nations general assembly could set up a court to try him in absentia for the crime of aggression, but the icc itself has to confine itself to war crimes and can use the doctrine of command responsibility, which obliges him on knowing of war crimes — and he's seen them, as buildings are bombed by his own forces — to investigate and to prosecute, and, of course, he's been entirely insouciant about the crimes committed by his own forces, which he knows well about. so, for those reasons, and there are more indictments coming for killing civilians, children, in those bombings,

in the destruction of the theatre in mariupol with 1,000 people... and so on and so forth. i don't need to detail his crimes. as i say, we have the specific charge sheet which karim khan has come out with so far, but let's broaden this discussion now. you are a great fan of the international criminal court. it's part of the machinery of internationaljustice, which you are a passionate advocate for. i believe in the court. i don't believe necessarily that it's covered itself with glory so far... but isn't that the problem, geoffrey robertson, that many people around the world — i referred to it in my introduction — do not feel that this charge against putin represents truly even—handed justice? they do not believe that the icc operates on a... if we can put it this way, on a level playing field. well, they should wait for the evidence. karim khan has said that he will unveil it in proceedings... but to be honest with you,

i'm not thinking about the evidence in this case, however compelling it may be. i'm thinking about all of the cases which the icc has not taken up and which people around the world are very well aware of. one can perhaps put at the front of the line the us—led invasion of iraq in 2003. we know... yes. ..from reporting, from many different sources, that us forces were involved in the killing of civilians in iraq. and so probably were british. yes. and what has the icc done about that? it's done nothing because it couldn't do anything at that stage. bush and blair were guilty of aggression, as we know it now. it wasn't a crime in 2003. if it were, then i doubt that britain would have joined the invasion, but it wasn't. it is now. it was since 2017. plus, you have the answer that two wrongs don't make a right.

but it isn't even just about the iraq invasion, the aftermath of that, it's about a more fundamental point. the united states does not recognise the legitimacy of the icc, nor of course does russia, nor does china. the big powers in the end are not going ever to be held to account by this court. and the rest of the world sees that and that is a fundamental problem for this machine. well, i don't think that's a fundamental objection... you don't? ..when the machine works. the machine hasn't worked, and i've been the first to criticise it in its first years of operation, because it's mainly rounded up leaders of african states, who are guilty of barbaric acts, so their being african does not exempt them from that criticism... but it isn't a good look, is it, when the only leaders around the world who have been brought to justice by the court come from africa? it looks better now. it looks better since putin

was indicted for crimes of which he's undoubtedly guilty, the killing of children, the kidnapping of children. that is what we, or decent people, would expect an international court to do, to hold him liable. the last time a head of state was held liable, i approved the indictment myself. that was of charles taylor, who is now languishing in a british prison. he is indeed. does the case of charles taylor, which you were so intimately involved in... does it, do you believe, have any resonance at all with vladimir putin, of course the leader of the second most powerful nuclear nation on earth... of course. ..whereas charles taylor was the leader of liberia, which, with the best will in the world, doesn't carry much clout? i accept that, but it does... it is the ideal that even

the most powerful should be capable of being indicted. this will be a precedent, and it so happens that indictments of leaders in the past have presaged their fall from power. milosevic was indicted and then handed over. the beasts of the balkans were indicted and then went into hiding for 20 years and were ultimately caught up with. you know something — even in our conversation thus far, you have always tried to see the positive and to be optimistic about the direction of travel. i put it to you that the direction of travel, notjust in terms of leaders and accountability for war crimes, but the direction of travel, in terms of freedom of speech, democracy, the basic freedoms that we believe in, certainly in the west... in the west. ..they are in retreat in many parts of the world. to quote the un secretary—general just a few months ago, "across the world," he said, "democracy is backsliding." there isn't much room for positivity there, is there? that's true.

and to some extent, we have produced a form of, by way of sanctions, punishing the backsliders, the corrupt and the murderers by sanctioning them, but... and that magnitsky sanctions, as they're called, has been an improvement... the targeted sanctions, you mean, against those deemed to be responsible for human rights abuses. absolutely. it has been used in russia, it's been used by the americans and others against chinese officials. it's been used against iranian officials. it's been used by the british government against some kleptocrats, some of those who are believed on reasonable grounds to be guilty of human rights abuses. i see that as an advance, but i see... do you? yes, i do. isn't the problem here that the magnitsky sanctions are, in a sense, imposed by a cosy club of western—orientated nations, whereas there's a whole other raft of nations

across the world? and, of course, we see it embodied in the reaction to the ukraine war... china, russia, iran, the brics countries, they're all actually deeply sceptical about your talk of sanctions, about a western—imposed view of the world and the way it should work. well, so be it. the argument for these human rights sanctions is, of course, that it's not purely western. it's not western to deplore murder, mass murder, genocide, and so forth. they are international treaties, which other countries, even if it's lip service, are bound to pay service to. but don't you, geoffrey robertson, see it as a problem that increasingly in the 21st century, those values you've just espoused, which i'm sure you would like to think

of as universal, are in the nature of the international debate coming to be defined as western, as somehow the imposition of a western neo—imperialist mind—set? well, they shouldn't be because they were agreed by all countries at the end of the second world war, under the shadow of the holocaust. and, of course, they're embodied in international treaties, which all countries signed. and the problem has been to hold them to it, and i include america in having to hold them to it. so, support for the icc has, until recently, not been forthcoming from america, which is the leading western power, and so i don't think the argument that the case against mass murder or genocide is purely western. haven't you just touched upon something very important, when you included in a sub—clause the united states there in one of your areas of concern? isn't the truth that in recent

years, what we've seen is not just authoritarian regimes around the world resort to policies which you would regard as fundamentally abusive, but also we've seen a fundamental lack of respect for international law and international norms coming from democratic systems and societies too? coming from the trump regime, certainly. you could look at the united states under donald trump, you could look at countries like poland and hungary, within the european union, you could look at a country like turkey, which is a democracy inside nato, and you could say in all of these examples, there are worrying signs that governments are using their legislative power to undermine, for example, the independence of the courts. look at israel today, which is almost at a state of civil war, because the right—wing netanyahu government is trying to hijack the rule of law by appointing politically helpfuljudges.

this is a continuing fight, and yet it was a polish judge who announced the indictment of putin. so, don't despair... as we speak, we don't know how the drama in israel is going to play out. no. it may take many more weeks and months before it comes clear whether that judicial reform will be pushed through, but netanyahu's argument, and those associated with him, is that for too long, israel has been too beholden to what they pretty much describe as a dictatorship of thejudiciary, with thejudiciary appointed not by democratically elected politicians, but by an elite, who do not represent the true voice and view of the people. isn't there something happening in democracies, where leaders are effectively tapping into people power and saying this is more important? that's what trump did with the supreme court, in order to change the law on abortion. and, of course,

he largely succeeded. and so it's not confined to individual states. it's natural, ifear, for politicians in democracies to try to control the press, to try to control the law, so it favours their allies. do you think the human rights movement as a whole, and you're a sort of doyenne of that movement, has undermined the power of populism in democracies? you focus so much of your time and attention on abuses in what you regard as authoritarian regimes, prisoners of conscience and all of that, but actually, something really important — and maybe, from your point of view, very worrying — is happening right under your noses in the west? well, a populist movement has not... while it's succeeded in some countries, it's never come up with credible solutions to those countries�* problems, so i'm not worried about populism. i'm more worried about those authoritarian tendencies that we see.

at the moment, even in america, the biden administration is hamstrung. it wants to help the international criminal court with evidence and, of course, it's got a lot of it, but the pentagon objects because the pentagon is concerned that support for the international criminal court may one day involve indicting an american. so, yes, there are problems within even supporters of human rights, to the extent that... you talk about the united states... ..you find the pentagon in this particular obstructive phase. the democracy you know best, that you've worked in for many decades, is the united kingdom. sure. you have just written a book — here it is, lawfare: how russians,

the rich and the government try to prevent free speech. and what you appear to be saying here is that the uk system, which british politicians proclaim as absolutely enshrining freedoms, including freedom of expression, you say it's somewhat of a myth, that actually the british legal system doesn't guarantee freedoms at all. it doesn't. this is the problem. we don't have free speech in this country. we have expensive speech. if you want to write an expose of a russian oligarch, or of british defence, or of wealthy individuals, they come at you with defamation actions, which will cost you £1 million, even to successfully defend. they come at you with privacy actions... to be fair, they come at you with the law and, surely, they have a right to use the law. of course. and the argument that i make

is the law should be changed to favour free speech and not to suppress, as the way criticisms of putin were suppressed. books, prescient books a couple of years ago, showing that putin and his cronies were corrupt, have never been published in britain, or were subject, in the case of one important book, to massive cost. it cost the publishers £1.5 million to defend it... and that refers to the book written by catherine belton about the rise of vladimir putin, his association with oligarchs. and catherine belton and her publisher ended up in a very expensive and difficult court case. and other books were stopped. cambridge university press said that one of the books it had commissioned, which was a very fine book, they couldn't take the risk of publishing, for fear

that the oligarchs would sue them for defamation and succeed in costing them £1 million, even before the case came to trial. and on that basis, you make a powerful case that the british system doesn't work in the interests of ordinary people, that rich people can exploit particularly the sort of laws on privacy and defamation and libel. i get it. but surely, you must be aware that there's a different way of looking at this — that, actually, the british press itself is one of the most powerful, well resourced elements in british society and that privacy is actually important to protect the individual in britain, often not well resourced at all, against the abuses and the excesses of the british press, of which we have seen plenty in the last decade. well, you'd think so,

but in terms of invading privacy in the way we've heard some tabloids do... egregious acts by tabloid newspapers. all right. think ofjimmy savile. just think how he, for years... a well—known tv performer, for those not in the uk. ..using bbc offices to abuse children. but, of course, was the british press to blame for not exposing him? they knew about it, of course. articles were written in the sun and the mirror between 1994 and 2008, and yet they couldn't be published because the burden of proving them rested on the defence. and that's why america does not enforce british libel laws. no, i understand. so, that's one of the... the british government says it has heard people like you and your complaints about the way the system works. it's going to introduce a new bill of rights which will balance, they say,

the absolute necessity to enshrine free expression, alongside the retention of a right to privacy, a right to national security for the government. they say, "we can balance this." one of the reasons i wrote my book was my fury at the british bill of rights that mr raab promised. it didn't, in fact, provide forfree speech. 0n the contrary, and i go through the ways in which it will trap journalists, because free speech is not a right they will be able to advance in any criminal prosecution, in cases of privacy, that are brought and so forth. it is a rotten bill, which doesn't secure rights at all. it's basically devised to prevent people from enforcing their human rights. so... we must end in a moment, geoffrey robertson. so, you've taken me on a journey, which began with great positivity about the fact that the

international criminal court has indicted vladimir putin, and now you are fuming about what you see as the failure of the british government to uphold basic rights of free speech, so, ultimately... well, they're two different things. of course they are. but in the end, what unites them is the degree to which governments are committed to a positive journey, to a greater respect for international law, basic freedoms, basic human rights. indeed. do you believe that that journey is in a positive direction or not? i believe it's a journey that we have to struggle to travel on. as far as the british government is concerned, it of course says how much it's in favour of free speech. it doesn't change the law which allows kleptocrats, oligarchs and so forth to force british publishers to abandon their books. and as far as the international case is concerned, it will be a fight to get putin

into the dock — because he won't come — but it will have an impact. and one will try to make it more impactful. we'll have to wait and see, but it's an important start for the idea of international justice. geoffrey robertson, we have to end there, but i thank you very much forjoining me on hardtalk. thank you. thank you, stephen. hello there. for the vast majority, sunday turned out to be the drier and brighter day of the weekend as cloud continued to melt away. and for monday, the prospects are largely dry.

there will be some lengthy spells of sunshine, but with those clear skies overhead, we are getting off to a decidedly chilly start. the chilliest morning many of us will have seen for quite some time. however, this time of year the sun has got some strength to it, so the frost should tend to lift pretty quickly. many of us will see lengthy spells of sunshine. just a bit of patchy cloud. more cloud generally, i think, getting into northern ireland through the afternoon. certainly the sunshine here will turn rather hazy. the wind is picking up here as well. also getting quite breezy in the west and the northwest of scotland. temperatures, well, nine degrees in aberdeen, not as chilly as it has been for these north sea coasts, and the highest values out west up to around 13 or 1a. but as soon as the sun goes down, again where we keep clear skies, we will see those temperatures dropping and a touch of frost, particularly across england, wales and eastern scotland. northwestern scotland

and northern ireland not getting quite as cold because here we will see more in the way of cloud and some splashes of rain thanks to this frontal system. now, this is going to be a very weak affair. it's running up against this area of high pressure. so this front will just bring some areas of cloud and some splashes of rain into northern ireland, western and northwestern parts of scotland. eastern and southern scotland likely to see the sunshine turning quite hazy as cloud amounts increase. but for england and wales, another bright day with sunny skies overhead and it will feel just a little bit warmer, 13 or 1a degrees. that's not too bad if you do get yourself into any sunshine. now, on wednesday, we will see a more active frontal system, that will bring some heavier and more persistent rain across northern ireland and scotland. that rain may well slump down into northern england, wales and the south west through the day. the south east corner likely to hold on to at least a little bit of brightness. temperatures, again, up to 13 or 1a degrees. now, some of that rain will get down into the south east corner as we move through into thursday. this frontal system becoming quite slow—moving for a time. but then high pressure

is set to build once again as we head into the start of the easter weekend. so as we move through friday, many places will be dry and through the weekend, a lot of dry weather around as well. there will be one or two showers and the increasing chance of rain in the north west of the uk by easter monday.

welcome to newsday, reporting live from singapore, i'm karishma vaswani. the headlines: one of russia's most influential pro—kremlin bloggers is killed in an explosion at a cafe in st petersburg. vladlen tatarsky wrote on the telegram platform from the frontline — supporting the russian invasion of ukraine. finland turns right. the opposition claims victory in the general election. prime minister sanna marin concedes. and paris says �*non�*. the french capital votes by a huge margin to end on—street rentals of e—scooters. in the new york times twitter

account is among those to lose verified status. the