Prisoner exchange between seven nations shows that diplomacy and never law regulates the exchange

Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich and two other Americans were released from Russia in a prisoner exchange on August 1, 2024. 24 prisoners, including 12 German nationals and eight Russians and two children – who weren’t prisoners – were exchanged in Ankara, Türkiye.

Described by the New York Times as “the most extensive exchange between Russia and the West for decades,” a posh agreement involving seven countriesincluding the United States, Slovenia, Turkey, Norway and Germany.

Some experts have described this sort of agreement as “Hostage diplomacy”, reflecting a growing trend of nations imprisoning foreigners for questionable reasons and treating their possible release as political bargaining chip to realize other goals.

Which rules – informal or otherwise – assist in designing such delicate negotiations and possible agreements? Amy Lieberman, political editor at The Conversation US, spoke with William Butler, a Specialist in Russian and international lawto raised understand this surprising prisoner release deal.

What do you notice about this deal?

The scope is remarkable and is the largest prisoner exchange between the US and Russia in history.

Seven countries are involved and 26 people have been released, which is amazingly unusual. Normally there could be bilateral negotiations to release a small number of individuals.

It is essential to know that Hostage-taking and prisoner dealing like this one are profoundly political, not legal, exercises. There are not any international treaties or international rules that determine how hostages and political prisoners needs to be released. All the countries involved could make the sort of arrangements they need on a case-by-case basis that suit their respective interests.

The real query is whether or not it will not be higher if there have been some sort of international legal framework that might allow for the discharge of hostages and political prisoners inside a set framework. In recent times, there was an increasing variety of cases of nations taking political prisoners and other foreign nationals hostage. A next step may very well be to determine international agreements that might institutionalise channels for the discharge of hostages and prisoners.

Some of those released today were imprisoned in Russia for several years. Paul Whelan was imprisoned there for nearly 4 years. What aspects can advance these discussions?

It's hard to say, because such negotiations happen in secret, and people involved on all sides are restricted in the data they’ll reveal.

Each case of hostage or political prisoner exchange is a story in itself. Common political aspects may come into play as countries gain more experience with the difficulty and learn from it what to do and what to say or to not say.

Is there another sort of informal script that countries could use in these negotiations?

Each country has its own internal mechanisms for such negotiations, but because these discussions are highly political and secret, they are going to not only involve lower or middle-level government officials. They are directly about getting heads of state to comply with a selected decision.

For us, that might mean that the President, the Vice President and the highest officials of the State Department could be involved within the negotiations.

The US has also established an internal mechanism to categorize US residents who’ve been “wrongfully detained” by other countries. This just isn’t a judgment on our a part of guilt or innocence – it simply implies that internally, so far as we’re concerned, various government agencies and officials are involved in expediting the opportunity of an exchange or release. For example, when basketball player Brittney Griner was detained, the primary hurdle for supporters calling for her release was to persuade the US government to categorise her as “wrongfully detained.”

Could the timing of this agreement have been influenced by other aspects, corresponding to Russia's war in Ukraine or the US presidential election?

The timing of such a deal is all the time an open field for speculation. I used to be personally interested after I saw that the trial of Evan Gershkovich, a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, was brought forward by the court to July. I discovered this unusual. Gershkovich was sentenced in July to 16 years in a penal colony after the Russian government accused him of espionage no public evidence of and whose truth the US government and Gershkovich's team denied.

The connection to Gershkovich's conviction and release has yet to be proven, however the timing of the trial could have indicated that the end result was significant to the timing of the discharge agreement.

Gershkovich's case was more complicated than that of Griner, whom the Russian authorities arrested after which arrested for drug smuggling in March 2022. She was imprisoned and sentenced to nine years in prison for drug smuggling in August 2022 before the U.S. reached an agreement with Russia and she or he was released in December 2022. Griner pleaded guilty to possession of narcotics to Russia.

In Gershkovich's case, the precise Russian criminal code under which he was convicted just isn’t known.

Are there similarities between the Griner and Gershkovich cases?

There could also be a wonderfully legitimate procedural reason why Gershkovich's lawyers asked for his trial date to be moved up. But the Russians have been adamant recently that anyone exchanged under a take care of one other country must first be convicted and never released before a trial. There is not any reason to exchange an innocent – that’s, unconvicted – person. Griner was also convicted before being released to the United States. If the person was not convicted, he should find a way to be released – an exchange is out of the query.