Interview by Camilla Landbø
If you have a banana on your plate for lunch, it's because of international law. Those are your words. What do you mean by that?
Helen Keller: For every state, borders are the basis. Without borders there is no territory, without territory there is no state, without states there is no international legal order. Especially today, borders play an extremely important role. We dream of a world world that is borderless, but at the same time we are reinforcing borders more and more, for example in asylum law or in trade law. And with the banana I wanted to show that as soon as a border is permeable, be it for goods like a banana or for people like travellers to Mallorca, then the states have to work together.

So that I can fly to Mallorca?
Yes. As a modern person you are used to being able to travel easily from one state to another. But during the Corona crisis people realized: «Oh, the borders can close.»

And for my banana?
As you know, bananas don't grow in Switzerland, so there must be agreements that regulate, among other things, how high the customs duty is. These fees are trade barriers. If, for example, politicians want the Swiss to eat more domestic apples and fewer foreign bananas and therefore impose high customs duties on bananas, then these are trade policy regulations that must be compatible with international law.

So there are numerous provisions in a banana, including human rights provisions...
Exactly. And social rights. And health rights: What were the bananas allowed to be treated with on their way to Switzerland so that they could ripen and still be edible when they land in our shops? So international law plays a central role in our daily lives.

International law also includes human rights. Surprisingly, the Vatican has still not signed the UN Charter on Human Rights.
That's right. The Vatican and Belarus are also the only two states that have not ratified the European Convention on Human Rights.

Why do you think that is?
Perhaps out of fear of the European Court of Human Rights. If we had included the Vatican in an international human rights protection system, we would certainly be much further along in clearing up cases of abuse. But the Vatican probably won't sign because it is also afraid of other issues.

Which issues?
The way the Vatican is still organized today, it would have a huge discrimination problem, and would have to solve these issues first if it wanted to sign a human rights convention.

Are you talking about women?
Yes, women cannot take on the same functions in the church organisation as men. No state can afford that nowadays. This discrimination applies to all leadership positions in the church. Women, on the other hand, are allowed to clean the toilets.

And cook.
Exactly. Incidentally, Switzerland also had to make changes in the 1970s before it could ratify the European Convention on Human Rights in 1974. It had to introduce women's suffrage.

So the law of God is higher than the law of man.
Well, certain Arab states have made a global reservation when ratifying international human rights treaties – in favor of Sharia law.

The Pope has commented on the Ukraine war: NATO's barking at Russia's door probably provoked Putin. He also questions the arms deliveries to Ukraine.
Hm. The more weapons you deliver, the longer the war will last and the more people will die. If you do not deliver them, a lot of Ukrainians will probably be killed, but the war will perhaps last less long overall. From a pacifist point of view, I can understand the Pope's statement on arms deliveries.

Are not wars per se illegal under international law? In the UN Charter, the «General Prohibition of the Use of Force» is stated in the first chapter.
So, since 1945 – since the adoption of the Charter – wars of aggression have been outlawed. But that does not mean that every war is illegal under international law. There are wars in which one defends oneself. With this argument, however, many states talk their way out of it, open a war and say: «We have to defend our territory because another state is illegitimately supporting subversives with weapons, technology and know-how.» With such wars, it is difficult to say whether they are illegal under international law.

Does that also apply to the Ukraine war?
In the case of Russia, we should have reacted earlier, as early as 2008, when the Russians attacked Georgia. Even then, we should have said that this was completely unlawful. At the very latest, however, know how to shift borders a little. He seems to be really serious about building a post-Soviet empire.

Really?
I would say so. This wider perspective is not only Putin's perspective. It is also shared by a circle of older men in his entourage. Together they dream of post-Soviet rule. The history distortion practised by the Russian side also points to this vision, to this fantasy.

Otherwise, Russia would never have started the war?
This war lacks any rationality. The economic mess it has caused, especially in Russia itself, alone should have deterred the Russians from attacking. The same goes for the immense destruction in Ukraine or the crisis in the wheat food market. Wheat is a staple food, this is now causing great famines all over the world. Russia has never been as isolated as it is now in the last hundred years.

Are not things getting tight for Putin domestically?
Yes, they are, but not because he is losing the support of the population at large. But because there are more and more oligarchs who are distancing themselves from him. They realise that their money is blocked outside Russia. There was a kind of unwritten pact between the oligarchs and the Russian leadership, namely: They get to get rich and enjoy life by a western standard of luxury in exchange for keeping quiet. And in return, Putin stabilises the system and enables the economic upswing.

And now their money, villas and yachts are being taken away from them abroad.
The economy has collapsed, the pact no longer works. There are more and more powerful people in Russia who are now saying loudly, «I am not behind this war. It is bad for us.» But whether that will be enough domestically to change anything in Russia is difficult to say. We see far too little behind the new iron curtain.

War of aggression, torture, rape, executions, destruction of civilian facilities such as hospitals and schools. The list of Putin's crimes under international law is long. You once said that if a state refuses to abide by international law, an international court is almost powerless.
With such serious violations of international law, one can no longer look the other way. The moral pressure to hold those who have committed war crimes accountable will be enormous. It will probably not be possible with the high-ranking people responsible.

And Putin?
I do not think Putin can ever be brought to justice. As long as he remains in Russia, it will be extremely difficult.

Carla del Ponte has called for an international arrest warrant against Putin.
Currently, Putin enjoys immunity as president, like all other public officials. Within Russia, he has also secured immunity for life. I would doubt that Putin would travel after the Ukraine war: he could no longer be sure that he would not be caught if he travelled abroad.

So many treaties, agreements, conventions: And yet this war of aggression and these human rights violations. What are all these rules for?
About 120 years ago, war began to be seen as more than just a continuation of politics by other means. The new message was: if yes to war, then the horrors on the battlefield should be reduced to a minimum. The Hague and Geneva Conventions were adopted. Without these conventions, wars would be much worse.

But in the Ukraine war...?
The atrocities are terrible. But, if you look back in the history of international law, you see that there has never been such a great unity of the communities of states to sanction an aggressor. Nor has it ever happened that the International Court of Justice in The Hague issues super-provisional measures in an ongoing war and says: «The belligerents must immediately stop the war.» In the history of international law, that is a success. But of course Putin does not abide by it.

What will the process of dealing with the crimes be like?
The International Criminal Court is working closely with different national teams, Ukrainian, European. They go on the ground and try to collect evidence to document the war crimes. This is also unique, by the way.

Was that not done in the past?
No. It also has to do with the fact that you normally cannot travel to a war zone. The Ukrainians guaranteed security for the teams from Italy, France, Great Britain or Switzerland. Digging up the bodies, taking the photos, that is a huge job for which the Ukrainians themselves would not have enough staff. There are also experts who analyse the satellite images and collect data to find out where the mass graves are. And we still need people who know how to work as forensic scientists, who can see, for example, that a bullet has passed through the ear, or that a person was tortured before being killed. It's a terrible job. You need people with strong nerves.

So today there is more unity and more means to act against war crimes.
There is still indignation that you can – in spite of international law – invade a country, just like that.

The main factor in this war is that the people are not the only ones who are involved in the war.
The key factor in this war is that Russia is a nuclear power. Indeed, Ukraine gave up its nuclear devices when the Soviet Union dissolved. We have a geopolitical imbalance here: on the one hand, a nuclear power, on the other hand, a state that is not a member of NATO and does not possess nuclear weapons. We don't oppose the Russians for fear of a nuclear war.

The Ukrainians want to join the EU...
From the point of view of international law, this is their right. But the Russians write history differently, saying: it is our people, our territory.

Russia has also threatened the Finns if they join NATO. Would Putin dare to attack Finland?
I hope not. But I have lost confidence that Russia is acting according to a rationality that we can understand. As I said before, all rational reasons spoke against the war in Ukraine. Today, however, we find ourselves in the middle of it, and with a cruelty that even the most pessimistic did not foresee.

Is another world war possible?
It would be horrible, but yes. Putin is old, has nothing left to lose and may want to make history – even if it is with a megalomaniacal plan. This would cause us all a collective trauma for decades. We want to believe that there will be no nuclear war – even if the current situation is decidedly critical.