How capable is the politicized international law at a time of sharp conflict between Russia and the West to keep pace with the political realities of the world and what are the chances that Vladimir Putin will be arrested and tried for war crimes after the order of the International Criminal Court?

The answer is known to everyone in Washington, in Berlin or in Kiev, in the locations where in the past months the indictment against the first leader of a country that is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council has been worked on rapidly.

Already in the first weeks after the Russian invasion, war crimes proceedings were brought before the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice in Ukraine, among other things, because these tribunals, unlike national courts, do not grant immunity to presidents , prime ministers and other high officials.

In contrast, there will be nothing of the spectacular trial of Vladimir Vladimirovich, who, of all the crimes committed by the Russian invasion troops – from the aggression against a sovereign country to the attack on the maternity hospital in Mariupol – is charged with the illegal deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia. .

The order from The Hague is an indirect confirmation that the chances of a peaceful resolution of the war in Ukraine are almost non-existent for the time being. How to talk to a war criminal? The UN Security Council can suspend the court's decisions if it deems them to be an obstacle to the establishment of peace and stability, but that was clearly not the idea of ​​the ICC judges.

The political background of the judgment goes back to the question of what happened to the destruction of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or Syria? The court order, from the standpoint of justice, would certainly seem more convincing if it were accompanied by an announcement of a trial for established war crimes committed by Ukrainians against Russians, but can anyone imagine an arrest warrant for Volodymyr Zelensky?

The trial as a declaration of war

It is shown once again that the UN tribunal, established by the Rome Statute of 1998 and officially active since 2002, is managed by the one that has the largest contribution to the budget of the World Organization - the United States, which refused to join the ICC.

Russia was at the ICC until 2016, when it withdrew in the face of accusations over the conduct of the Crimean War two years earlier. Putin did not comment on the occasion, but his spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the arrest warrant was "null and void". Then Putin's close ally, Dmitry Medvedev, threatened that any attempted arrest would be interpreted as a declaration of war on Russia. Ukraine, on whose territory the crimes were committed, is also not a member of the ICC, although after the occupation of Crimea it said it accepted the jurisdiction of the court on its territory.

The three key actors, then, are outside the court that is now prosecuting the Russian president. The fact that Putin's trial is in the realm of political fantasy can be explained by other, not only hypocritical, arguments. The announced process is often compared to the one in Nuremberg, when the Nazis were tried. There is a big difference here. Hitler's regime capitulated after military defeat. In the Ukrainian war, there are neither winners nor losers, and there will hardly be any.

There are also obstacles of a technical nature. The ICC cannot arrest, and there is no trial without personal presence. It has already been shown how difficult it is for international tribunals to prove personal involvement in committed crimes.

Moscow's countermeasures

It would be easier to prove the act of Russian aggression, but that is not within the jurisdiction of the ICC. Hence the idea of ​​establishing a special court for Ukraine, which would open the process in Putin's absence. To be established, it would have to bypass the UN Security Council, in which Russia has the right of veto, and go before the General Assembly, but "directed justice" fails to gain the support of even half of the UN members.

Now 132 countries that have ratified the ICC Statute are obliged to arrest Putin if he is found on their territory. In Berlin they announced that they would immediately deprive him of his freedom if he set foot on the territory of Germany. They ordered the same from Zagreb.

No matter how absurd the detention of Putin may seem and no matter how much it fits a gesture of solidarity with Zelensky, Moscow is taking all measures to protect itself. It is proposed to ban all the activities of the ICC on the territory of Russia and punish all those who "aid and support" that court. Criminal proceedings have been opened against ICC officials and judges.

In Moscow they are aware that Putin will not appear before the court, but they must be worried because the world has built its own perceptions and that it is not pleasant to be in the same company with Slobodan Milosevic, with the former Sudanese president Omar Bashir, who until today successfully escaping from the ICC, or with the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, who was killed.

Milosevic was delivered only after his government was overthrown. If that analogy is followed, the regime in the Kremlin would have to be overthrown and Putin arrested. The new government would then consider whether to extradite him to The Hague.

Unwanted guest

A warrant for Putin's arrest is unlikely to change the political dynamic in Russia. It may even boost public support for the president. Much of the world, such as China and India, which are also not in the ICC, is skeptical. Even Hungary, a member of NATO and the European Union, opposed the resolution from the Union, and Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said that Putin would not be arrested in Hungary.

In problem, however, are the countries whose agenda has already announced the visit of the Russian president. South Africa is hosting the BRICS summit in August and doesn't know what to do. At one time, she allowed Bashir to enter the country and exit unhindered, but she would hardly risk violating her obligations as a member of the court again. Putin is supposed to travel to the G-20 summit in New Delhi in September, but under the circumstances he is likely to stay in Moscow, even though India is not at the ICC.

With that, the mandate leaves the symbolic, moral and political domain and acquires a practical dimension. It is believed that Putin will not be invited to various international forums, but this will only further expose the hypocrisy of those who are not with Putin and work closely with the Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, whom the CIA determined was involved in the murder. of Saudi dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

During the recent meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, the Russian president presented himself as the leader of the fight against the American unipolar world and against the "arrogant and aggressive" policy of NATO and the West. In order to gain allies, it is necessary for him to travel, but he will not be able to do that. The space for Putin's movement is not physically limited, but the ICC warrant for his arrest is a clear illustration of the fact that the principles of the rule of law and an independent judiciary can be contrary to the rules and traditions of realpolitik.

(The author is a journalist)