Putin’s Doomsday: will he reach The Hague?  

In 2006, Slobodan Milošević, the former Yugoslav leader, died of a heart attack in his cell in The Hague after four years of imprisonment, before the verdict was delivered in his case. Five years later, in October 2011, Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi was killed by rebels in his hometown of Sirte. He was subjected to torture and dragged through the city streets as a sign of humiliation. In 2019, after a military coup, the president of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, was arrested. All these leaders share the commonality of being issued an arrest warrant by the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Now, Putin has joined this inglorious"club."

Suspicion for Putin

The International Criminal Court's indictment of Putin was expected, but it still surprised experts in war crimes. On March 15, at a press conference about the International Military Tribunal for Russia, British barrister Geoffrey Nice asked why the ICC, which was going to present the indictments for consideration by the judges, was acting so slowly. He added, "It is clear that Putin has committed crimes against humanity."

Just two days later, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova, the Russian presidential commissioner for children's rights. They are suspected of illegally deporting Ukrainian children from occupied territories to Russia, which is considered a war crime. Ukrainian prosecutors claim that 16,000 Ukrainian children were deported, but the actual number may be much higher. Ukraine has managed to bring back only around 300.

The case may expand to include other crimes committed on Ukrainian territory, according to the head of the International Criminal Court, Piotr Hofmański. Putin falls under all three types of crimes considered by the court: genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Therefore, it is likely that the charges will be expanded. The kidnapping of Ukrainian children is a signal to countries that signed the Rome Statute but did not clearly oppose Putin and Russia in the war. They should not maintain contacts with Putin, who is toxic.

A Historic Decision for Ukraine

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has described the decision by the International Criminal Court (ICC) as "historic" and one with real prospects for justice in Ukraine. The ICC ruled that Russian President Vladimir Putin has official suspect status in the illegal forced transfer of Ukrainian children. The Ukrainian Prosecutor General, Andriy Kostin, has stated that this means Putin should be arrested and brought to court outside of Russia. Other government officials in Ukraine have also praised the ICC decision.

However, some Ukrainian experts are concerned that this decision may not become an alternative to the international tribunal regarding the crime of Russian aggression, which Ukraine is currently promoting. They argue that if there are already charges against Putin, then an additional tribunal is unnecessary. The President's office assures that the ICC's decision does not overlap with the special tribunal against the Russian authorities. "The mandate of the International Criminal Court is one story, but the mandate of a special tribunal to prove guilt in the crime of aggression is a different track altogether. The prosecution track for a primary crime, for a key crime, for which Putin and his closest entourage will have to answer," explains the deputy head of the President's office, Smirnov.

Moving Closer to Doomsday

Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas remarked on the International Criminal Court's decision regarding Putin. Other European Union leaders also welcomed the decision, with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz emphasizing that no one is above the law. The head of European diplomacy, Josep Borrell, positively assessed the warrant for Putin's arrest, stating that it marks the beginning of the process of bringing him to justice. He added that the EU considers this decision as the start of holding all those responsible, especially the Russian leadership, accountable for the crimes and atrocities committed in Ukraine on their orders.

Several countries, including the United States, Canada, Great Britain, and Japan, have expressed support for the decision of the International Criminal Court, with US President Joe Biden commenting that the warrant for Putin's arrest is "justified" and a "very strong position." Meanwhile, the head of the Munich Security Conference, Christoph Heusgen, stated that Putin is now a "leper" of the international community.

In contrast, Russia has reacted with its typical hysteria. The Deputy Head of the Security Council of the Russian Federation Medvedev threatened to target the building of the International Criminal Court that issued the warrant for Putin's arrest. He believes that since the court is just an international organization, not the population of a NATO country, it will not start a war. The official representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia, Maria Zakharova, stated that the decisions of the International Court of Justice hold no meaning for Moscow. She added that any potential warrants for arrest coming from the court will be legally null and void for them.

Putin has already been to The Hague

It's ironic that Putin had previously spoken at The Hague 18 years ago and praised the UN International Court of Justice, emphasizing the importance of its existence. "Once again, I would like to highlight that the mere existence of the International Court of Justice in the UN system is the most crucial condition for the stability and legitimacy of this organization... The International Court of Justice plays a significant role in preventing international conflicts and resolving disputes peacefully. Ultimately, your work contributes to the establishment of international justice. This has been made possible thanks to the court's independence, special status, and the unique composition of its judges," Putin stated in 2005.

Which leaders were accused by ICC? 

On February 20, ICC prosecutor Karim Khan stated that Putin has been issued an international warrant for his arrest for life. However, previous examples of international courts in The Hague regarding the arrest of state leaders have not been very successful. Four heads of state were charged, but none of them received a sentence.

After World War II, the first international court with a UN mandate was established in May 1993. The International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia was launched at the initiative of France, with its headquarters in the Dutch city of The Hague. The tribunal's purpose was to punish those guilty of violations of international humanitarian laws and customs of war, genocide, and crimes against humanity. The tribunal had about 1,200 employees from 77 countries. It was active until 2017 and during its 24 years of work, it brought charges against 161 people, with 90 of them convicted and 17 accused acquitted in The Hague. The most prominent defendant was the former president of Serbia, Slobodan Milošević. In 2001, he was taken to the UN prison in The Hague, and his trial began the following year. However, four years later, Milošević died of a heart attack before the court could reach a verdict.

After the establishment of the tribunal, it became clear that the punishment for war crimes could not be limited to the former Yugoslavia, and a similar court was needed permanently. In 1998, 120 states signed the Rome Statute, the legal basis for the creation of a permanent international criminal court. Four years later, in July 2002, the International Criminal Court (ICC) was formed in The Hague. The ICC received the status of an independent international organization and is not part of the UN structure, although it can initiate cases at the request of its Security Council. Currently, 123 countries participate in the ICC, and Ukraine, along with 31 other states, signed the Rome Statute establishing the court but has not yet ratified it.

Since 2006, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued charges against 46 individuals, including three heads of state. In 2008, Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir was accused of committing acts of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in Darfur, resulting in the deaths of more than 300,000 people. Despite his arrest following a military coup in 2019, he has yet to be extradited to an international court for justice. In 2011, an arrest warrant was issued for Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, accused of crimes against humanity, including the shooting of unarmed demonstrators during protests in Libya. However, Gaddafi was killed by rebels before he could be brought to The Hague. The President of the Ivory Coast, Laurent Gbagbo, was indicted in 2011, accused of involvement in mass killings and rapes committed by his supporters during an armed conflict that occurred after Gbagbo lost an election. In 2019, the International Court of Justice acquitted him.

Charles Taylor, the former president of Liberia, is an exception to this pattern. His trial lasted five years, and he was found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including murder, rape, and child recruitment during the Sierra Leonean civil war. However, he was sentenced to 50 years in prison in 2012 not by the International Criminal Court, but by the UN tribunal.

As we can see, none of the four heads of state who were issued arrest warrants by the ICC have been convicted. It remains to be seen what the consequences of an arrest warrant for Putin would be.

Consequences for Putin

The first consequence of the International Criminal Court's (ICC) decision to issue an arrest warrant for Putin is that he will face even greater isolation. According to the Rome Statute, ratified by 123 states, including all EU members, Putin can be extradited. Serbian President Vučić criticized the ICC's decision, stating that it was intended to "complicate his communication." This is true since the accusation of war crimes against Putin will make him toxic for communication.

Federal Minister of Justice of Germany, Marco Buschmann, stated that Germany "will be forced to arrest Putin and hand him over to the ICC if he ends up on German territory." This statement is a painful blow to Putin's ego, given his past in East Germany and German officials' involvement in promoting Gazprom. Later, the head of the Investigative Committee of Russia, Bastrykin, stated the need to give a legal assessment of the Minister of Justice of Germany's statements.

Even countries more favorable to Russia, such as South Africa, which conducted joint naval exercises with Russia in February 2023, have reacted to the ICC's decision. The South African government stated that it has taken note of the decision and that there is currently no official confirmation of Putin's participation in the BRICS leaders' summit in August this year.

There is expected to be less talk about not "humiliating Russia" and making concessions on sovereignty to "save Putin's face." The civilized world does not offer concessions to child kidnappers to save face, and the same should apply to war crimes.

It is not a coincidence that Putin's suspicion emerged just before the Chinese leader's visit to Moscow. China continues to support Russia, and during his visit, Xi Jinping praised the "significant successes" achieved under Putin's leadership, referring to him as his "dear friend." However, such open support for an international criminal can tarnish the image of peacemaker that Xi Jinping has been working hard to create. The Chinese "peace plan" did not include any specifics, and this drew critical responses from leading Western democracies. John Kirby said that Xi Jinping should have urged Russia to end its invasion of Ukraine. However, he added, we haven't seen anything from Xi or Putin that would lead us to believe that the war in Ukraine will end anytime soon.

The ICC's decision is also a signal to Russian officials and oligarchs. Today, it seems unlikely that the Russians will give up their dictator, but a similar story happened with Slobodan Milošević. In 1999, when the Hague Tribunal indicted the former president of Yugoslavia, Milošević’s supporters in Serbia laughed at the decision, stating that they would never extradite the former president. The Constitution of Yugoslavia prohibited the extradition of Yugoslav citizens to a foreign court. Additionally, Serbia did not sign a cooperation agreement with the tribunal nor recognize its statute, and the president of Yugoslavia, Vojislav Kostunica, refused to cooperate, calling it illegal. However, two years later, Milošević was simply sold. In 2000, the US Congress approved economic aid to Belgrade, and one of the conditions was the extradition of war criminals to The Hague, including Slobodan Milošević. In 2001, despite Serbia's Constitutional Court suspending the government's decree on cooperation with the International Court of Justice, Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic ordered Milošević to be sent to the tribunal.

Will Putin only face judgment after defeat?

Following the issuance of an arrest warrant, it is unlikely that Putin will be apprehended and taken to The Hague immediately. Historical examples demonstrate that leaders indicted by international courts typically face trial only after they have lost power in their country due to war or civil unrest. The most well-known international trial of war criminals, the Nuremberg Tribunal, occurred after Germany's defeat in World War II.

The challenges in achieving justice within organizations such as the UN and the ICC are similar. Although the UN was established to prevent wars and promote peace, it lacks the necessary resources to achieve this goal and is only capable of addressing minor local conflicts. Likewise, the International Criminal Court, which aims to prosecute crimes against humanity and war crimes, does not possess the means to arrest suspects.

This issue is comparable to criminal proceedings in national courts, where the police are responsible for apprehending suspects before they appear in court. While a court or tribunal can gather evidence and make a decision, it lacks the authority to make an arrest. In Putin's case, the Ukrainian Armed Forces currently serve as the "police force," and it is ultimately up to them, as well as the support of the Western Allies, to determine whether Putin will lose the war and stand trial before the International Court of Justice.