The judicial and legal landscape has transformed into a political and diplomatic one, and the International Criminal Court’s ruling against Vladimir Putin signals the beginning of a new round of tensions between Europe and Russia.
According to the informants, “informants” He further wrote: The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin for war crimes. Meanwhile, the official spokesman for the Russian President’s office considered this ruling invalid and condemned its issuance. But Joe Biden, the president of the United States, welcomed the verdict and said that in his opinion it was “clear” that Vladimir Putin had “committed a war crime”. On the other hand, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called this sentence a “historic decision”. This ruling was made in connection with the illegal and forcible transfer of children from Ukraine to Russia, and the ICC prosecutor said, based on the evidence, that the crime began at least since Russia’s all-out attack on Ukraine. on February 24, 2022. To further investigate the dimensions of this problem, we spoke with Hassan Beheshtipur, an expert on Eurasia, which you can read in detail below:
What is your assessment of the International Criminal Court’s ruling against Putin? From what point of view is this important?
If we look at it from a legal point of view, Russia has not joined the International Criminal Court on the basis of the Rome Statute of 1998. The Hague Criminal Court, unlike the Hague International Court, prosecutes persons, which means dealing with crimes of people who have committed crimes. The Hague International Court, however, has a different procedure for dealing with complaints and disputes between governments. The jurisdiction of the ICC relates to crimes committed since 2003. That is, since the year in which a sufficient number of countries accepted the Statute of the International Court of Justice and became its final members. Therefore, it has nothing to do with pre-2003 crimes.
The topic after dealing with the crimes that occurred in the Member States. In the case of Vladimir Putin, as is known, Russia has never become a member of such a court. The same applies to the case of Ukraine and the accusation of illegal and forced removal of children. In past years, Kyiv has applied for membership in this court, but it has not yet received final approval from parliament. Therefore, Ukraine does not have the necessary conditions either.
Therefore, the prosecutor also prepared the report based on the information provided personally and submitted it to the judges of the court, and finally, the warrant for Putin’s arrest was also issued in the process on charges of Ukrainian children.
Given that Russia is not a member of the Rome Statute and considers it invalid, does this sentence have a legal basis and value, or is it just an accidental sentence?
There are differences of opinion on this matter. Some say that if Putin is convicted, no one in the group of countries that are members of this court will be able to travel, because in this case they are obliged to arrest Putin based on the arrest warrant.
The next important thing is for the president who holds the post of President of Russia to pass judgment. Previously, the International Criminal Court had issued such rulings against Omar al-Bashir, or Charles Taylor, the president of Liberia, or Muammar Gaddafi, the leader of Libya. It must be borne in mind that Heads of State enjoy immunity from legal action in various countries due to their office and popular vote.
Given the fact that Putin holds the presidency of Russia and this makes him immune from legal action, can the court take action against him?
I’ve mentioned the legal aspects of the story so far. The most important factor among them is the political issue. The issuance of such a ruling and its follow-up by Western countries show the escalation of disputes over the war in Ukraine, which are gaining new dimensions day by day. Such a ruling incites Russia and Putin to take tougher measures. What is most interesting is that America, China and India have not joined this court either. Although Madeleine Albright, the US Secretary of State at the time, signed the membership of this court, they later withdrew it. Nor did China and Russia sign from the start. In fact, the Americans who do not accept this court themselves, by persecuting European countries such as England and France, who are members of this court, are starting a new phase of international confrontations against Putin. In fact, it can be said that the judicial and legal scene has turned into a political and diplomatic scene. This action appears to be a new factor of tension in international relations. Another point is that the world seems to have entered a new environment in the legal system, and the concepts of optional walls or the concepts that created immunity for state leaders have undergone great changes. For this reason, it seems that the world is moving in the direction of international courts issuing arrest warrants for heads of state who are currently in office.
And as a final question, have the Europeans received dangerous signals on the Ukrainian battlefield? According to the news of Russia’s progress in Bakhmut?
seems unlikely; Because the issue of the arrest warrant against Putin was being followed up and dealt with since September and even before that. A case that Karim Khan, the Public Prosecutor of the Criminal Court, had announced earlier. Therefore, it can be said that whether Russia advanced or retreated, the arrest warrant would have been issued in the end. Given the visit of Chinese leader Xi Jinping to Russia and the follow-up to peace talks between Russia and Ukraine, the order to arrest Putin will create new tensions that will make the work of the Chinese leader more difficult and complicated.
the end of the letter