Putin vs International Criminal Court

On March 17, the International Criminal Court (ICC) in Hague issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin. However, the Russian government showed no signs of being intimidated by the warrant and even expressed indignation, going so far as to initiate a retaliatory criminal case against the prosecutor and judges who issued the warrant. Some countries publicly stated that they would arrest Putin in accordance with the ICC order if he were to visit. Nevertheless, the likelihood of Putin's arrest is extremely low. What are the reasons for this and what is the potential risk for the Russian president?
The International Criminal Court is a permanent international criminal justice body which competence includes the prosecution and punishment of persons responsible for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes of aggression. It was established on the basis of the Rome Statute, adopted in 1998, and has been ratified by about one hundred and twenty countries. At the same time, several countries fundamentally object to the very idea of the ICC as limiting the sovereignty of states and giving excessively broad competence to the court; among them are China, India, Israel, Iran.
One of the most prominent opponents of the Rome Statute is the United States.
Initially, President Bill Clinton signed the document in 2000, but he refused to ratify it until the ICC proves its effectiveness. Two years later, the Bush administration withdrew the signature and refused to participate in the Rome Statute, claiming it violates the national interests and sovereignty of the United States. Moreover, in 2002, the American Service Members' Protection Act was adopted, which allowed the use of military force to release any American personnel or personnel among US allies detained on the territory of any state under an ICC warrant. The United States has also signed bilateral agreements with a number of countries, in which the latter were obliged not to extradite suspected American citizens to the International Criminal Court, and in case of violation of these agreements, the United States will stop providing them with military and any other support. Under the administration of Donald Trump, Washington's hostility to the actions of the ICC has become even more acute – the White House has threatened to impose personal sanctions against court employees in response to investigations against American citizens related to possible war crimes in Afghanistan. Thus, ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and ICC founder Fakiso Mochochoko, on the grounds that the ICC "continues to act against Americans," were blacklisted by the United States along with terrorists and drug traffickers.

What is the reason for such an outright boycott of an organization designed to fill a gap in the criminal practice of the international community in the field of punishing the most serious international crimes? The International Criminal Court is limited in its jurisdiction – it has no advantage over the domestic justice system, and its jurisdiction is only complementary. In addition, the ICC can begin its proceedings only after the acceptance of its jurisdiction by the state of which the offender is a citizen or on which territory the crime was committed (Statute, Article 12). So where's the catch?

There is an opinion that the United States refuses to join the treaty, since it is highly likely that they will then have to cooperate on investigations of the actions of the US military and the CIA in different countries. According to the 2016 ICC report, there is reason to believe that the US military tortured people in secret prisons in Afghanistan. At the same time, according to John Bolton, the former national security adviser to the US President, neither Afghanistan nor the parties to the Rome Statute asked for such investigation. The official also said that the United States does not recognize the primacy of anyone or anything over the American constitution, and the ICC system itself is ineffective and leads to ambiguous judicial decisions and impunity.

It is worth noting that Article 27 of the Statute claims that the jurisdiction of the Court extends to any individual, including heads of state and government, members of governments, elected representatives and officials. The accused person will not be able to use his or her official position or status as an argument to avoid criminal punishment or to invoke mitigating circumstances – there is no de jure immunity against the ICC. Although within the framework of international relations, the head of state has personal immunity, which means another state cannot arrest them.

However, the accusations of the Court's inability are not entirely groundless: in 14 years of operation, the ICC, in which more than a billion euros were invested, handed down only four convictions. During its existence, the Court issued 29 arrest warrants, but only eight convicts were eventually detained. This circumstance probably makes the international community doubt that Vladimir Putin will be arrested as well. The forecast is further aggravated by the fact that even states that have signed the Rome Statute might not follow it. For example, Hungary, being a member country of the ICC, has not officially recognized the part of the treaty that would have made Putin's arrest possible, since "it would have violated the Hungarian constitution", said the head of the office of the Prime Minister of the country, Gergely Goulash. In addition, if the current head of state comes to a country that has obligations to the ICC on the one hand, and obligations related to immunity on the other, the country itself decides what to give priority to. There are no precedents for the extradition of the current head of state, although the ICC has repeatedly issued warrants for their arrest. There were, however, two cases when suspects appeared before the ICC voluntarily – the President and Vice-President of Kenya.
Gleb Bogush, an expert on international law
So Putin, like any other suspect, also has the opportunity to voluntarily appear in Court. This is no more fantastic scenario than the prospect of his detention.
Need research assistance? Let us know
Sending your request you allow us to use your personal information and accept confidentiality policy