all of you. i thank you. amb. nusseibeh: i thank the representative of ukraine further statements. there are no more names on the list of speakers. the meeting is adjourned. [gavel pounds] [background chatter] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> the russian military has begun an assault on ukraine, without provocation, without justification, without necessity -- this is a premeditated attack. announcer: c-span has unfiltered coverage of the u.s. response to russia's invasion of ukraine, including the latest from the president and other white house officials, the pentagon and

state department, as well as congress. we also have international perspectives from the united nations and statements from foreign leaders. today's jobs report showed that the unemployment rate dropped to 3.8% from 4%, and that the economy added 678,000 jobs in february. announcer: c-span is your unfiltered view of government. provided by these television companies, including cox. >> cox is committed to providing access to affordable internet through the connect program. bridging the digital divide one connected energy at a time. bringing us closer.

cox supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. ♪ host: next up, we are joined by an associate professor who is an expert on the international criminal court and war crimes. justice : the international court. let's start with the historical concept of where war crimes began. guest: it has been something that has been pretty well established for a number of centuries. it has taken different forms. the idea is that even in conflicts there should be limits on what it has done and where people are treated. it is in the 19th century that

we start to get multilateral agreements and treaties that layout certain rules for how conflicts are to be waged. it was during the u.s. civil war that one of the most influential codes of conduct for warfare was elaborated. that was by france's labor, u.s. professor. then you get things like the st. petersburg declaration. moving on, you get the hague declaration. after world war ii, you get the geneva conventions, which are the modern basis for the laws governing armed conflict. host: the geneva convention after world war ii, those were meant to apply to any future conflicts. this seems in every conflict since that claims of violations

of the geneva convention have come even from nations that signed that invention. guest: one of the notable features of the geneva conventions is they have been universally ratified. russia is a member. ukraine is a member. there are additional agreements after the geneva conventions that not all countries have signed. the basic agreements have been signed by all countries. in almost every conflict, there are allegations of violations. it is clear that whenever there is fighting, there are going to be allegations of violations. i think that is because violence and warfare are so hard to control. part of the -- what is being attempted here is to control and put limits on violence. that is hard to do. i don't think we should say that the geneva conventions are the

rules or the rules more broadly are meaningless. we are somewhere in that world between the rules not being perfectly enforced and not always being complied with and them being meaningless. i think we are in the middle of that spectrum. host: it is worth pointing out what that geneva convention's, the highlights of what the geneva conventions prohibits, including willful killing, torture or inhumane treatment, biological experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injuries to body or health, extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully, compelling a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power, willfully depriving a pow of rights of a fair and regular

trial, the unlawful deportation or transfer and the taking of hostages. who enforces this? this is the convention. how does this get enforced? guest: this was an important question and one of the main dilemmas when you talk about international law is who does the enforcing. the basic idea of the geneva conventions is it is supposed to be based on reciprocity. all countries are supposed to have an interest because they don't want their civilians to be targeted. they don't want their pows to be mistreated. the idea is all the parties are going to have an incentive to abide by them. that obviously does not always work. for that reason, there has been movement in recent years to set

up judicial mechanisms to prosecute war crimes. we have the international criminal court. the prosecutor of the international criminal court announced he was going to be starting a full investigation of what is going on in ukraine. in the last few decades, the world has moved more towards having international tribunals and courts with the ability to prosecute violations. historically, that idea was jumpstarted by the nuremberg trials and tokyo tribunals. it is not until the 1990's that we got started with having regular international tribunals that could prosecute violations. host: david bosco, associate professor at indiana university, his law degree from harvard law.

we welcome your comments. the topic is the international criminal court. we are talking about possible war crimes in ukraine. the lines are (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. for independents and all others (202) 748-8002. the u.s. senate is moving towards passing a resolution supporting and international criminal court investigation against vladimir putin. let's take a listen. i will ask your thoughts on what senator graham had to say. [video clip] >> i think the entire world, those who believe in the rule of need to speak on behalf of this complaint. we are not prejudging the outcome. we are saying this is a good thing to be doing. this is a legitimate complaint in our eyes and would ask the icc to investigate. i want to let the russian federals no -- generals know you

follow the orders of prudent at your own peril. you could find yourself in the hague if you have a scorched earth policy to get the ukrainian people to submit to your will. the world is watching you, not just putin. i will do anything in my power, as long as it takes, to be a voice for justice of the ukrainian people. to hold one of the most vicious people on the planet accountable, putin and all of his cronies. enough of the murder, enough of destruction and carnage on your behalf. host: david bosco, you had mentioned the nuremberg trials after world war ii, which largely targeted the generals. do these prosecutions also aim

for the common soldier, sailor? guest: no, if you look at the treaty that created the international criminal court, there is talk about holding responsible those who have most responsibility. that has been the practice of the international criminal court so far, it has been to go for commanders and potentially political leaders who are deemed responsible. for example, the former president of sudan, the former defense minister of sudan, those people were charged for atrocities in the darfur region of sudan. i think the icc is going to be looking at how high can they go when it comes to the russian military and political leadership. in response to senator graham's comments, there is a deep irony in the u.s. now supporting the

investigation of russia at the international criminal court because the united states has had the view across several administrations that the icc does not have the ability to go after and prosecute non-members of the icc because there was concern about icc prosecutions of u.s. personnel, specifically in afghanistan. what is happening is not surprising, which is that u.s. leadership sees targeting russia as something good and just but still has deep doubts about the international criminal court's ability to investigate the u.s. host: where is the icc based, and how is it funded? guest: it is based in the hague. that is why you have seen images of ukraine roadsigns with all directions pointing to the hague.

it is funded by the countries that have joined the icc. more than 120 countries have joined the icc. they pay annual dues to keep the court running. the u.s. is not a member. rush is not a member. china is not a member. india is not a member. some of the bigger countries in the world are not members of the court. host: let's get to calls. mike in michigan. caller: hello. considering that putin helped -- in his campaign against, for lack of a better word, insurgents in his own country, and there was no pushback there, i feel putin has just been emboldened.

when you hear people talking about stability, i don't think that is the case. i think he knows just what he was doing all along. he has never received any pushback. i think he is just going to keep going as far as he can until somebody steps up and says enough is enough. anybody that is willing to poison or imprison, pres. biden: thank you. earlier this week i said that there was something happening in