Jelisejevs: Military nature of Nord Stream case creates legal problems
Aleksejs Jelisejevs analyzes how Germany's attempt to try Ukrainians for the Nord Stream bombing clashes with limits of Interpol and European arrest warrants, as the case itself is described by Germany as a military-political operation.
Germany's investigation into the September 2022 Nord Stream pipeline explosions has named seven Ukrainian citizens as suspects. Two have been detained: one in Italy (extradited to Germany) and another in Poland, whose court refused extradition. The case reveals fundamental flaws in international legal mechanisms, according to the publication.
According to the German Federal Prosecutor's Office, the bombing was a military operation by Ukrainian army officers aimed at depriving Russia of gas revenues to fund its war. The author argues this makes the case military-political, not a common crime.
Interpol's Constitution Article 3 strictly prohibits the organization from engaging in activities of a political, military, religious, or racial nature. The author emphasizes that the Nord Stream case is dominated by military and political context, so using Interpol for searches would violate its mandate.
The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) is not automatic – EU framework allows refusal if it violates fundamental rights. Poland's court refused extradition because it viewed the attack as a military action in a 'just war', not an extraditable offense. Italy's court initially overturned extradition due to terrorism classification but later approved it.
Outside the EU, extradition is governed by the 1957 European Convention on Extradition, which bans extradition for political or military offenses. However, the 1975 Additional Protocol excludes this ban for grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. The author also notes that Ukraine's Constitution Article 25 prohibits extradition of its citizens.
The conclusion: Germany can try the already detained suspect in its own courts, but using Interpol to search for other suspects should be challenged as contrary to its constitution.
