19 March 2023, NIICE Commentary 8574
Aditya Ranjan
President Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova, Russia’s Children’s Commissioner, are the subjects of a Hague-based International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest order. They are charged with committing a war crime by forcibly and illegally transporting children from Ukraine to Russia. Around 16,000 children have allegedly been deported from Ukraine, according to the government. The precise figure has not yet been disclosed and it is unknown. Amnesty International produced a report exposing the coercive removal, deportation, and likely transfer of many Ukrainian people into Russia or the deeper territory that was held or controlled by Russia. Crimes against humanity are alleged against Russia. Orphanages have many missing children. Additionally, there are instances where people move voluntarily while not having an option. Human rights watch group has also accused Russia of war crime and blamed Russia for the disastrous impact on civilians, property, and infrastructure. On the other hand, Moscow asserts that it moved children from more devastated areas or regions under attack by Ukrainian forces to Russia for their safety. Russia denies recognition of the court and emphasizes the nullity of the warrants. The story, though, has a variety of different interpretations, which fuels the discussion about whether the current verdict was merely a gimmick or something more substantive against Putin’s alleged crimes against humanity.
According to the Russian Ambassador to the UN, the ICC is a puppet in the hands of the allied west, which is always eager to carry out pseudo-jurisdiction at their direction. According to Russia, the accusation is founded on false information and fabrication made by non-independent western tools. The political elites of western nations govern the ICC. The ruling by the ICC has drawn criticism for being anti-Russian, pro-western, and highly influenced by the US. In the past, the ICC has been charged with bias and partiality against African governments. A few African nations, including Burundi, South Africa, and the Gambia, announced their withdrawal from the Rome Statute in 2016. Later, the South African high court ruled that this action was unlawful and unconstitutional. But, the patterns indicate that the ICC has only brought cases against Africans so far. As a result, claims against the ICC have consistently made headlines. On the other hand, the ICC asserts that its judges make decisions based on relevant information and evidence and are objective and apolitical. However, other human rights organizations and documentaries have also called attention to the crimes and breaches committed by the Ukrainian side.
The western side was accused of waging a hybrid war against Russia. According to the Russians, many lives have been saved by transferring youngsters from the battle zone under the Ukrainian army’s artillery. Also, Russia claimed that a few hundred children in Donbas were killed by Ukrainian shelling; as a result, Russia moved to the secure zone while saving the kids. Even the parents were delighted to do that and even requested local officials to bring their children to the safe zone, according to Russian claims, that they placed youngsters safely in perfect health conditions.
The historical relationships or civilizational linkages spanning more than 1000 years are another way to grasp this, which Russians emphasize more than anything else. The joint history of the two nations dates back to the time when Kyiv, the current city of Ukraine, served as the administrative hub of Kyivan Rus, the first Slavic state and the origin of both Ukraine and Russia. On numerous occasions, Vladimir Putin has proclaimed that “Russians and Ukrainians are one people, a single whole.” Russians value families, as seen by adopting Ukrainian children who are culturally or historically Russian. Therefore, the ICC issuing a warrant is just nothing; instead, it is a western creation and a part of the more extensive western propaganda of demonizing Russia and particularly Putin at the global level.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) looks into and prosecutes people accused of the most severe offences the international community is concerned about, including genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes of aggression. Russia, China, the US, and Israel, among many others, do not recognize the jurisdiction, but 123 other nations do. Its main flaw is the International Criminal Court’s absence of an enforcement mechanism. The execution of the court’s decision depends upon the states. As a result, the verdict against Putin is a disabled arrest order, and the 123 states are required by law to cooperate in accordance with their position. Yet obtaining an arrest warrant just serves to make it abundantly evident to everyone that the behaviour has repercussions and that a legal accountability system exists. The accused cannot travel to these 123 nations, which comprise two-thirds of the world’s nations unless this state is a party to the ICC. The ICC has also noted that this is only the start of the investigation and that other future arrest warrants for Russian officials are expected to be issued.
Putin is unlikely to be detained or turn himself into the ICC. Russia has also made a compelling, well-founded defense. But, if Putin travels outside of Russia or the nations that are ICC members, there is a chance that he might be turned over. Time will tell what transpires on Putin’s upcoming trip, which he had planned to take to South Africa for the BRICS Conference. Unfortunately, the ICC’s issuing an arrest warrant against President Putin will worsen things in the European continent, complicate diplomatic solutions, and favour conflict over peace.
Aditya Ranjan is a Doctoral Candidate at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
