I don't think Putin is in a hurry to surrender himself to the ICC, and nobody is going to arrest him overseas, because as a head of state he has a total diplomatic immunity.
Full disclosure: I'm fully in support of Ukraine in this Russian-expansionist war. However this is just a cold hard fact. Me pointing it out in no way whatsoever even suggests that I'm pro-russian. Which I'm absolutely not.
If the goal is to give Russia maximum incentive to f-off this is not what you want to be doing.
This moves the current situation further down the spectrum from "minor expansionist war we can pull out of and keep our heads on our bodies" and closer toward "potential existential crisis" from the point of view of Putin and his close buddies.
The ICC is basically saying to Putin that any future successor can earn a few (more than they already would) brownie points with the west (or at least the parts of it that have the most interest alignment with the ICC) by turning him in. In practice this does nothing other than make Putin less likely (not that he was very likely to begin with) to ever voluntarily relinquish office except on his deathbed (see also: Fidel Castro).
Putin eventually stepping down in favor of someone who will at least marginally improve relations with the west (not hard to imagine, over the years plenty of dictators have given up power to "moderate" successors in order to head off potential power struggles) would be good. This makes that marginally less likely (not that it was particularly likely in the sort/medium term).
Edit: INB4 someone inevitably tries to construe any of this as being pro-russia, it's not.
>marginally lower chance that Putin continues to run Russia through a hand picked stooge of a successor.
Your three options are Putin, Putin's Stooge and "whoever overthrows Putin"
I think the middle option is valuable because it gives Putin's less expansionist and more trade inclined henchmen an opportunity to leverage fear of the third toward an outcome that is good for everyone but Putin but less bad than the third.
Ok so we want to be careful about not offending the ultra-nationalist expansionist guy...because the next guy might be an ultra-nationalist expansionist?
IMO, that still means you reduced the world by one ultra-nationalist expansionist who had sufficient connections and charisma to get into power. And that's still a win, even if there's still more of them out there.
> Ok so we want to be careful about not offending the ultra-nationalist expansionist guy...because the next guy might be an ultra-nationalist expansionist?
That's not what I said. We shouldn't do any appeasement whatsoever.
Just pointing out to the fact that if someone overthrows Putin, it's not necessarily going to be a guy who thinks that the war in Ukraine is stupid.
3b isn't a real option though if you're trying to head off a potential coup. You need to go with 3a in order to placate the oligarchs who want to go back to doing business as usual and placate the military who wants to go back to not being generally hated by the populace in order to reduce potential support for the coup you're scared of.
Diplomatic immunity is absolute. Even committing war crimes doesn't rescind it.
His diplomatic immunity will lapse once he's no longer the head of state however.
EDIT: Pretty sure that they are personas-non-grata in each other's country at this point, which is a specifically described scenario in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
So no, of course Zelensky couldn't enter Russia and expect nothing to happen. An Putin couldn't enter Ukraine with the expectation that his immunity will hold.
But both of them could enter any 3rd country with a reasonable expectation of that.
That sounds… extreme. Wikipedia lists several examples [1] where a diplomat's immunity was waived by their home country since they committed offense unrelated to their function. And the same seems to be true for head states committing war crimes, as it is unrelated to their function [2].
> Appealing the Pre-Trial Chamber’s decision last year, lawyers for Jordan argued that because al-Bashir was a head of state at the time of his visit he was immune from arrest. But in its recent ruling, ICC judges concluded “there is no Head of State immunity under customary international law vis-a-vis an international court.”
As a theoretical exercise, does anyone know what the punishment for these crimes would be? Of course we'll never see a trial, but I'm just curious, if it were to happen in some parallel universe, what would they get? A couple years in jail? Life?
> The trials targeted 177 defendants and obtained 142 convictions, including 25 death sentences
> On 11 December 1946, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously passed a resolution affirming "the principles of international law recognized by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the judgment of the Tribunal".
> Consistent with international human rights standards, the International Criminal Court has no competence to impose a death penalty. The Court can impose lengthy terms of imprisonment of up to 30 years or life when so justified by the gravity of the case. The Court may, in addition, order a fine, forfeiture of proceeds, property or assets derived from the committed crime.
Its really hard to tell; life imprisonment plus fines and forfeiture, would be the maximum, but there’s not some equivalent of the Sentencing Guidelines that exist for the US federal system where you could map war crimes allegations to point values and come up with an estimated sentence based on the allegations (plus, the actual warrants and details of the allegations remain secret; only the barest details of the warrants have been published as an attempt to deter continuation of ongoing crimes under the authority of these two actors, so even if we had an “ICC Sentencing Manual”, we wouldn’t have the information to apply it.)
Applying maximum pressure to Russia requires issuing these warrants even if they’re unlikely to successfully bring him personally to justice. The relative sway doesn’t matter, I’m just doing what I can to send a message that these actions are not okay.
An excellent starting point for dealing with heads of state initiating wars of aggression over false pretenses, and there is absolutely no reason to stop there.
It would be a shame if Putin decided to follow Washington's lead and simply criminalize the ICC itself [1].
Yes, were Putin to wash up at Plymouth Rock, it would be a federal crime for any LEO to comply with the ICC and arrest him. Not that that would stop them, but it's funny to consider.
> Additionally, the act does not prohibit the U.S. from assisting in the search and capture of foreign nationals wanted for prosecution by the ICC, specifically naming Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milošević, and Osama bin Laden as examples.
I mean if the LEO were to say something like "according to ICC warrant, you're under arrest!". But practically they would just arrest him and pretend they've never heard of the ICC.
I don’t think that’s true! IIUC the protections from that act only apply to a subset of humans, including us military and nato military members. It’s in the article you linked! So if you see Putin at your local Safeway go ahead and citizens arrest him :)
It's extra hilarious that you actually posted the link which proves everything you said is false. Putin isn't an American service member and neither an American in general. He can't be 'extradited' if he wasn't here in the first place, and the article also states:
> Additionally, the act does not prohibit the U.S. from assisting in the search and capture of foreign nationals wanted for prosecution by the ICC
No, it is not. While the spirit of the law is to protect USA personnel and not official enemies like Putin, Section 4 prohibits any explicit cooperation with the ICC. My other comment included the clause "comply with the ICC", which is forbidden.
> SEC. 2015. <<NOTE: 22 USC 7433.>> ASSISTANCE TO INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS.
> Nothing in this title shall prohibit the United States from
rendering assistance to international efforts to bring to justice Saddam
Hussein, Slobodan Milosovic, Osama bin Laden, other members of Al Queda,
leaders of Islamic Jihad, and other foreign nationals accused of
genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity.
From the ICC:
> Mr Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, born on 7 October 1952, President of the Russian Federation, is allegedly responsible for the war crime of unlawful deportation of population (children) and that of unlawful transfer of population (children) from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation (under articles 8(2)(a)(vii) and 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute).
> Yes, were Putin to wash up at Plymouth Rock, it would be a federal crime for any LEO to comply with the ICC and arrest him.
I mean, since ICC arrest warrants have no force in the US, it would be a violation of due process and hence false arrest, but the American Service Members Protection Act has nothing to do with that.
It would not be illegal, however, for American law enforcement officers to arrest him on a US warrant pursuant to an extradition request from a Rome Statue Party, because the ICC extradition protections in the Act extend only to US citizens, which Putin decidedly is not.
Of course, the US could also just try, convict, and execute Putin for war crimes itself in that case, and the ICC doesn’t apply the death penalty, so I’m not sure not getting extradited to the ICC would be a win for Putin, anyway. The US War Crimes statute allows US exercise of jurisdiction if either any part of the offense occurs in the US, any victim was a US citizen or service member, or the offender happens to be present in the US, regardless of where the crime occurred and the nationality of victims.
This is the first time I've heard of Maria Lvova-Belova.
I'm aware of the forced deportation of children from Ukraine to Russia. Can someone shed light on her role in this (other than her title of Commissioner of Children's Rights) and why she's being singled out?
It is meaningless. The only time this has any meaning is if Russia crumbles in a war, and the victor nations choose to try Putin in the ICC.
A better solution to this nightmare would be Russians themselves protesting (and ceasing production) until Putin resigns - which isn't going to happen anytime soon.
This is exactly why a functional democracy is so important. Bad leaders must be ejected for the sake of humanity.
> So I wonder if Putitn attends the G20, which he has done in the past, can he be arrested there ?
Maybe, but even with heads-of-state where there were less in the way of, shall we say, practical deterrents, that has been problematic to make happen (e.g., Al-Bashir of Sudan, while he was in office.)
68 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 60.5 ms ] thread[0] https://twitter.com/IntlCrimCourt/status/1636746559588036610
I don't think Putin is in a hurry to surrender himself to the ICC, and nobody is going to arrest him overseas, because as a head of state he has a total diplomatic immunity.
Full disclosure: I'm fully in support of Ukraine in this Russian-expansionist war. However this is just a cold hard fact. Me pointing it out in no way whatsoever even suggests that I'm pro-russian. Which I'm absolutely not.
This moves the current situation further down the spectrum from "minor expansionist war we can pull out of and keep our heads on our bodies" and closer toward "potential existential crisis" from the point of view of Putin and his close buddies.
The ICC is basically saying to Putin that any future successor can earn a few (more than they already would) brownie points with the west (or at least the parts of it that have the most interest alignment with the ICC) by turning him in. In practice this does nothing other than make Putin less likely (not that he was very likely to begin with) to ever voluntarily relinquish office except on his deathbed (see also: Fidel Castro).
Putin eventually stepping down in favor of someone who will at least marginally improve relations with the west (not hard to imagine, over the years plenty of dictators have given up power to "moderate" successors in order to head off potential power struggles) would be good. This makes that marginally less likely (not that it was particularly likely in the sort/medium term).
Edit: INB4 someone inevitably tries to construe any of this as being pro-russia, it's not.
I feel like this is over-stating the previous likelihood
It's always possible to come up with reasons to not act because acting might rock the boat. It's appeasement. Why should the ICC appease Putin?
Your three options are Putin, Putin's Stooge and "whoever overthrows Putin"
I think the middle option is valuable because it gives Putin's less expansionist and more trade inclined henchmen an opportunity to leverage fear of the third toward an outcome that is good for everyone but Putin but less bad than the third.
3a - Someone western minded
3b - Someone even more expansionist. Like some ultra-nationalist. Or the head of the Wagner group.
IMO, that still means you reduced the world by one ultra-nationalist expansionist who had sufficient connections and charisma to get into power. And that's still a win, even if there's still more of them out there.
That's not what I said. We shouldn't do any appeasement whatsoever.
Just pointing out to the fact that if someone overthrows Putin, it's not necessarily going to be a guy who thinks that the war in Ukraine is stupid.
I'll take a dice roll at a new devil. We know the current one is pretty bad and isn't likely to improve on his own.
He doesn't, because he committed war crimes. Simple as.
His diplomatic immunity will lapse once he's no longer the head of state however.
EDIT: Pretty sure that they are personas-non-grata in each other's country at this point, which is a specifically described scenario in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
So no, of course Zelensky couldn't enter Russia and expect nothing to happen. An Putin couldn't enter Ukraine with the expectation that his immunity will hold.
But both of them could enter any 3rd country with a reasonable expectation of that.
Whatever your answer will be, replace "Zelensky" in it with "Putin" and see if you would still stand behind it.
That sounds… extreme. Wikipedia lists several examples [1] where a diplomat's immunity was waived by their home country since they committed offense unrelated to their function. And the same seems to be true for head states committing war crimes, as it is unrelated to their function [2].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity
[2]: https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/are-international-immunities-...
> Appealing the Pre-Trial Chamber’s decision last year, lawyers for Jordan argued that because al-Bashir was a head of state at the time of his visit he was immune from arrest. But in its recent ruling, ICC judges concluded “there is no Head of State immunity under customary international law vis-a-vis an international court.”
> The trials targeted 177 defendants and obtained 142 convictions, including 25 death sentences
> On 11 December 1946, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously passed a resolution affirming "the principles of international law recognized by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the judgment of the Tribunal".
But (thanks ceejayoz) https://legal.un.org/icc/statute/iccq&a.htm:
> Consistent with international human rights standards, the International Criminal Court has no competence to impose a death penalty. The Court can impose lengthy terms of imprisonment of up to 30 years or life when so justified by the gravity of the case. The Court may, in addition, order a fine, forfeiture of proceeds, property or assets derived from the committed crime.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Taylor_(Liberian_polit...
Yes, it was on HN front page.[0]
But it seems like @dang immediately shadowed it manually.[0]
Now You may not find actual discussion scrolling even all 15 public pages of HN's "news".[1]
[0] https://twitter.com/hn_frontpage/status/1636764752759193606
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/news
Yes, were Putin to wash up at Plymouth Rock, it would be a federal crime for any LEO to comply with the ICC and arrest him. Not that that would stop them, but it's funny to consider.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
> Additionally, the act does not prohibit the U.S. from assisting in the search and capture of foreign nationals wanted for prosecution by the ICC, specifically naming Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milošević, and Osama bin Laden as examples.
> Additionally, the act does not prohibit the U.S. from assisting in the search and capture of foreign nationals wanted for prosecution by the ICC
It is your comments that are misleading.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ206/html/PLA...
> SEC. 2015. <<NOTE: 22 USC 7433.>> ASSISTANCE TO INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS.
> Nothing in this title shall prohibit the United States from rendering assistance to international efforts to bring to justice Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosovic, Osama bin Laden, other members of Al Queda, leaders of Islamic Jihad, and other foreign nationals accused of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity.
From the ICC:
> Mr Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, born on 7 October 1952, President of the Russian Federation, is allegedly responsible for the war crime of unlawful deportation of population (children) and that of unlawful transfer of population (children) from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation (under articles 8(2)(a)(vii) and 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute).
I mean, since ICC arrest warrants have no force in the US, it would be a violation of due process and hence false arrest, but the American Service Members Protection Act has nothing to do with that.
It would not be illegal, however, for American law enforcement officers to arrest him on a US warrant pursuant to an extradition request from a Rome Statue Party, because the ICC extradition protections in the Act extend only to US citizens, which Putin decidedly is not.
Of course, the US could also just try, convict, and execute Putin for war crimes itself in that case, and the ICC doesn’t apply the death penalty, so I’m not sure not getting extradited to the ICC would be a win for Putin, anyway. The US War Crimes statute allows US exercise of jurisdiction if either any part of the offense occurs in the US, any victim was a US citizen or service member, or the offender happens to be present in the US, regardless of where the crime occurred and the nationality of victims.
I'm aware of the forced deportation of children from Ukraine to Russia. Can someone shed light on her role in this (other than her title of Commissioner of Children's Rights) and why she's being singled out?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhjcwbLAr0I
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/02/16/putins-childrens-e...
She is also a prominent public supporter of the programme, having abdicted herself a teenager from Mariupol.
A better solution to this nightmare would be Russians themselves protesting (and ceasing production) until Putin resigns - which isn't going to happen anytime soon.
This is exactly why a functional democracy is so important. Bad leaders must be ejected for the sake of humanity.
Russia getting tired of Putin doesn’t require it crumbling in war.
Maybe, but even with heads-of-state where there were less in the way of, shall we say, practical deterrents, that has been problematic to make happen (e.g., Al-Bashir of Sudan, while he was in office.)