There is an almost widespread perception regarding the Russian-Ukrainian war. For most, Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, is atrocious. And much can be said about the man who shakes the world. So the question arises: If he can threaten everyone and even blow up a country, which alone reacts timidly, which entity here on earth will have the same strength to confront him legally?

Until then, there is a moral that is pushing the International Criminal Court (ICC) to prosecute Vladimir Putin for the attack on Ukraine.

The US has officially declared that Putin committed a war crime. ICC Prosecutor General Karim Khan went to Ukraine to investigate the accusation. Judicial experts in the field said that an indictment against Putin or other Russian leaders could take years.

Note: what follows is a translation of a text from cnn, which has compiled information about the International Criminal Court.

What is a war crime?

The International Criminal Court has specific definitions for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression.

Specifically, targeting civilian populations, violating the Geneva Conventions, targeting specific groups of people, and more, could be potential Russian war crimes.

Karim Khan said that there can be justified attacks in civilian areas if they are being used to launch attacks. Still, he said, attacks in civilian areas cannot be disproportionate.

There is a method of gathering evidence from testimonies, satellite images and elsewhere to meet the burden of proof.

What is the International Criminal Court?

Located in The Hague, Netherlands, and created by a treaty called the Rome Statute first presented to the United Nations, the International Criminal Court operates independently.

Most countries on earth - 123 of them - are part of the treaty, but there are very large and notable exceptions, including Russia and the US. And, for that matter, Ukraine.

Who can be judged by the court?

Anyone accused of a crime in the court's jurisdiction, which includes countries that are members of the ICC, can be tried. The court tries people, not countries, and focuses on those who hold the greatest responsibility: leaders and officials. Although Ukraine is not a member of the court, it has previously accepted its jurisdiction.

Putin could therefore theoretically be indicted by the court for having previously ordered war crimes in Crimea.

However, the ICC does not conduct trials in absentia, so he would have to be delivered by Russia or arrested outside of Russia. This seems unlikely.

What crimes does the court deal with?

The ICC is meant to be a court of "last resort" and is not intended to replace a country's judicial system. The court, which has 18 judges serving nine-year terms, tries four types of crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, crimes of aggression, and war crimes.

How does the ICC prosecute?

Prosecutions can be brought in one of two ways: Either a national government or the UN Security Council can refer cases for investigation.

Russia, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, has veto power over Council actions. It was requests by 39 national governments, most of them European, that triggered this ongoing investigation.

Khan previously told CNN, "I want to emphasize that I am willing to talk to all parties, and not only the Ukrainian side, but also the Russian Federation, state parties and non-state parties. This institution is not political. We are not part of the geostrategic or geopolitical divisions that we witness around the world."

What will the ICC investigate regarding Ukraine?

In its new investigation into possible war crimes in Russia, the ICC said it will look at all actions in Ukraine from 2013 to the present.

Russia first entered Crimea, which belonged to Ukraine, in 2014. The ICC was already investigating the repression of protesters by a previous Ukrainian government that was pro-Russian. This new referral seems to put all the potential war crimes together.

How long do these investigations take?

If justice in general moves slowly, international justice barely moves at all. Investigations at the ICC take many years. Only a handful of convictions have ever been won.

A preliminary investigation into hostilities in eastern Ukraine lasted more than six years - from April 2014 until December 2020. At the time, the prosecutor said there was evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The next steps were slowed by the covid-19 pandemic and a lack of resources at the court, which is conducting multiple investigations.

This perception of slow and ineffective justice will test the international law system, Khan told Cooper.

"This is a test for the court. It's a test for me, it's a test for the department," he said.

What are cluster pumps and vacuum pumps?

In addition to attacks on hospitals and civilian apartment buildings, the feared use of prohibited weapons designed to kill without discrimination is another very specific war crime.

With a cluster bomb, a missile is fired and explodes thousands of feet in the air, releasing smaller bombs that each detonate when they hit the ground. See an illustration from The Washington Post. Amnesty International said that a Russian cluster bomb fell on a Ukrainian daycare center.

"Vacuum bombs," or thermobaric weapons, suck oxygen from the surrounding air to generate a powerful explosion and a large pressure wave that can have enormous destructive effects. Russia has used them previously in Chechnya.

Why would a prosecution of Ukraine be any different?

The international outcry against Russia is unique, and this could give the court the ability to operate differently, according to Ryan Goodman, a law professor at New York University and co-editor-in-chief of Just Security, an online forum.

"It is difficult to judge the ICC investigation based on past experience," Goodman said in an email after the court initially launched its investigation. "In the Ukraine situation, the prosecutor is pressed by an extraordinary outpouring of support from dozens of countries, which I expect will be followed by an infusion of resources."

How would an ICC case affect the conflict?

"For better or worse, the ICC investigation may affect the diplomatic space for negotiations," Goodman said, arguing that Putin and other Russians may not want to risk arrest if they travel outside the country.

The investigation could also, he argued, weaken Putin in his country.

"Russians may come to realize that this is another reason why Putin can no longer serve his country," Goodman said.

What happened before the ICC?

Previous war crimes trials have been conducted by special UN tribunals, such as those set up for the former Yugoslavia, focusing on the Serbian autocrat Slobodan Milosevic, and the Rwandan genocide.

This all stems from the precedent of the Nuremberg trials to bring Nazis to justice after World War II and carried out by the Allies, including the US, the Soviet Union, France and Germany.

So it is interesting that neither the US nor Russia are members of the ICC.

Why are the US and Russia not members of the ICC?

Both the US and Russia are signatories to the treaty that created the ICC - meaning that their leaders have signed it - but neither is a member of the court.

Russia withdrew from the court in 2016 days after an ICC report published what CNN called a "damning verdict" on Russia's occupation of Crimea in 2014. The court also opened an inquiry in 2016 into Russia's efforts in 2008 to support separatist regions in Georgia.

At the time, France had also accused Russia of committing war crimes in Syria.

As for the US, while President Bill Clinton signed the treaty that created the court in 2000, he never recommended that the Senate ratify it.

The George W. Bush administration, to a fair amount of criticism, withdrew the US from being a party to the treaty in 2002. The Pentagon and many U.S. policymakers have long opposed membership in such an international court system, as it could open U.S. military service members to allegations of war crimes.

"The president (George W. Bush) thinks that the ICC is fundamentally flawed because it puts U.S. military personnel at fundamental risk of being tried by an entity that is beyond the reach of the U.S., beyond U.S. law, and can subject U.S. civilians and military personnel to arbitrary standards of justice," then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said at the time.

How has the US supported the court?

Opposing America's membership in the court did not mean that the Bush administration opposed the court itself. It supported the ICC's efforts to seek justice for the genocide in Sudan.

There has always been an awkwardness in how American presidents deal with the court, noted CNN's Tim Lister in 2011. He wrote about Barack Obama applauding the ICC's efforts to bring justice to people like former Serbian general Ratko Mladic and Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, while failing to support the court for its U.S. oversight.