Replies

ARTICLE

Hague court warrant: main consequences for Putin
March 18, 2023, 09: 29 GMT
https://www.bbc.com/ukrainian/news-64999078

After the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is accused of illegally deporting the population and children from Ukraine, Moscow said that this decision has no significance for Russia, and former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev called the warrant “toilet paper”.

But what will it mean for the rest of the world?

Despite the existence of an arrest warrant for Putin, the ICC does not have the authority to arrest suspects. Its jurisdiction extends only to countries that have signed and ratified the agreement establishing the court - the so-called Rome Statute. Russia is not a signatory to this agreement. As well as a number of other countries. Among the most famous exceptions, in addition to Russia, the United States, India and China.

However, as prosecutor general of Ukraine Andriy Kostin explained after the decision was made public, “from now on, the Russian president has the official status of a suspect in committing an international crime.”

And the ICC member states are required to comply with the warrant - if Putin is on their territory, they will have to hand it over to the court.

However, recently Putin does not travel to the countries that signed the Rome Statute. Over the past year, the Russian leader has visited Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Iran, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan and Belarus. Of all of them, only Tajikistan, which is a member of the ICC, could extradite Putin to the ICC.

Putin is an exile and not only that
As Ukrainian international lawyer Serhiy Petukhov explained, an arrest warrant from the ICC will have a number of specific consequences for Putin.:

First, Putin is deprived of immunity as head of state - from now on, “he does not have the immunity from criminal prosecution that all other presidents of countries have.”

In addition, Putin will not be able to travel to most countries of the world, because 123 states are parties to the Rome Statute.

“These are not only Western states, but also many states that have traditionally been favorable to Russia or taken a neutral position. For example, it is not clear how Putin will now go to the BRICS summits, because both Brazil and South Africa should arrest him and send him to the Hague,” Sergey Petukhov wrote on Facebook.

The lawyer also believes that the ICC prosecutor broke the Russian propaganda narrative about the voluntary relocation of Ukrainians to Russia - first the UN Independent Commission, and now the ICC prosecutor pointed out that Russia forcibly takes children and moves them to its territory, which is a war crime.

In addition, the international lawyer believes, the arrest warrant for Putin indicates that the West will not agree to a “peace agreement” with Russia, and that Moscow’s attempts to undermine the coalition of Ukraine’s international partners will not bring results. And Russia’s return to the civilized world is possible only after being punished for war crimes committed.

At the same time, international experts say that with ICC arrest warrants for leaders of states who have immunity while they are in office, not everything is so clear.

There are no precedents for the extradition of a state leader who performs his duties yet, although the ICC has already issued similar warrants. However, there were two cases when suspects voluntarily appeared in court. We are talking about the president and vice-president of Kenya, recalls Gleb Bogush, an expert on international law at the University of Copenhagen.

“This is no more fantastic option than the prospect of his detention,” the lawyer believes.

Gleb Bogush also recalls that the fact that Russia itself does not recognize the ICC does not mean that President Putin or another Russian cannot be brought to justice in this Court - “no one has any doubts that, for example, in Russia it is possible to arrest a Dutch citizen who is accused by Russian law enforcement agencies,” the lawyer explains.

It will not be an obstacle for the court that The Crimes of which the ICC accuses Putin occurred on the territory of Ukraine, because it itself transferred the right to judge to the International Court of justice.

Symbolism and applied consequences

President Putin may indeed not be in the dock in the near future because of his immunity as head of state, says Kevin Jon Heller, another international lawyer at the University of Copenhagen. But immunity from arrest does not mean impunity for statesmen, the lawyer emphasizes.

So, now Putin visits only “friendly” countries that are unlikely to extradite him to the ISS. But the already limited movements of the Russian leader will become even more difficult, and the countries of the “Global South” will be less willing to deal with him.:

“I think Putin will have the status of an exile - at least among Western countries.”

At the same time, Sir Geoffrey Nice, the prosecutor who led the case in the International Court of justice against former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic, also accused of war crimes, believes that the warrant from the ICC for Putin has more than just symbolic meaning.

According to him, this decision shows that there is enough evidence that Putin “is a criminal, that there is a war and it is criminal.”

Were there any precedents?
Libyan leader Maummar Gaddafi also received a warrant from the ICC. But he was killed before the case went to court

Libyan leader Maummar Gaddafi also received a warrant from the ICC. But he was killed before the case went to court

Vladimir Putin is the third incumbent state leader to have an arrest warrant issued by the ICC. His predecessors are Sudanese leader Omar al-Bashir and Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

Al-Bashir received two warrants , in 2009 and 2010, on charges of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. These accusations related to the conflict in Darfur in 2003, which resulted in the death of more than 300 thousand people.

In 2020, Al-Bashir was removed from power, the current leaders of Sudan agreed to extradite him to the ICC, but this has not happened so far.

Gaddafi’s arrest warrant was issued by the ICC in 2011, when mass protests were taking place in Libya. However, just a few months later, the Libyan leader was killed and the case was closed.

In addition, as ICC prosecutor Karim Ahmad Khan recalled, in addition to the trial of Milosevic in the Hague, which at first no one believed, it is also worth mentioning the leader of Liberia, Charles Taylor, who was sentenced to 50 years behind bars, as well as Felicien Kabuga from Rwanda, who was arrested in 2020.