This article focuses on the MH17 Trial that is currently underway in the Netherlands, dealing with the shooting down of a civilian aircraft over Eastern Ukraine and the resulting deaths of all 298 persons on board. Two legal questions arising from the prosecutorial strategy to charge the four accused with ‘ordinary’ crimes under the Dutch Criminal Code—instead of with war crimes—are studied here. First, the jurisdictional basis on which the District Court of The Hague is trying MH17, and its effect on the applicable laws, is examined. It is argued that, contrary to what the Prosecution has submitted, jurisdiction over the killing of the 93 non-Dutch nationals on board of flight MH17 can only be established on the basis of the less known title of delegated (representative) jurisdiction: a conclusion that also brings certain legal requirements. Second, this paper analyzes the way the MH17 Prosecutor defined the notion of ‘combatant’s privilege’ under international humanitarian law and his arguments for rejecting a combatant status for the separatist armed forces that shot down flight MH17 over Eastern Ukraine. All this analysis is then used to explain why it was indeed more sensible for the Prosecution to charge the four accused with murder and intentionally causing an aircraft to crash under Dutch criminal law, than with war crimes under international law.

本文重点介绍目前在荷兰进行的MH17试验，该试验涉及在乌克兰东部上空击落一架民用飞机以及导致机上 298 人全部死亡的事件。这里研究了起诉策略所产生的两个法律问题，即根据荷兰刑法典指控四名被告犯有“普通”罪行，而不是战争罪。一、海牙地方法院审理MH17案件的管辖权依据及其对适用法律的影响进行了审查。有人争辩说，与检方提交的内容相反，对在 MH17 航班上杀害 93 名非荷兰国民的管辖权只能建立在鲜为人知的授权（代表）管辖权的基础上：结论这也带来了某些法律要求。二、本文分析了MH17检察官根据国际人道法定义了“战斗员特权”的概念，以及他拒绝为击落乌克兰东部上空 MH17 航班的分离主义武装部队授予战斗员身份的论点。然后，所有这些分析都被用来解释为什么检方根据荷兰刑法指控四名被告犯有谋杀罪和故意导致飞机坠毁，而不是国际法下的战争罪确实更明智。