The arrest warrant against President Putin is more than a symbolic step

The arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court on Friday issued to Vladimir Putin seems at first glance just a symbolic gesture, but it is not. Although the chance is small that he will ever stand trial in The Hague, it is also possible. In addition, the arrest warrant has side effects that will affect the Russian president – even if he manages to avoid the court.

Putin is accused of deporting hundreds of Ukrainian children from orphanages and shelters to Russia, a war crime. Many of these children have been adopted by Russians. Putin has announced a legislative change by decree that will speed up the granting of Russian citizenship. According to prosecutor Karim Khan, this shows that the children were intended to leave their country permanently.

A second arrest warrant was issued for Maria Lvova-Belova, 38, who had been appointed Commissioner for Children’s Rights by Putin. She led the deportations. Putin is also blamed for not doing anything as president to stop the operations and to hold the perpetrators accountable (the so-called command-responsibility).

Because Russia does not recognize the court and the judges do not have their own police force, it is unlikely that Putin and Lvova will ever have to answer in The Hague. Since the court was founded in 2002, the lack of arrests has always been the main shortcoming.

1.So why is this more than a symbolic step?

First of all: the symbolism of this measure is also very important. For the first time, Putin has been seriously held accountable for the human rights violations committed under his authority. Whether it be the destruction of the Chechen capital Grozny in 1999, the Russian bombing of Syria or the political assassinations in Russia itself; for the first time an international court says that he must come and explain.

The United Nations Security Council, which was set up to prevent wars or end them as quickly as possible, has also never been able to stop Putin. As one of five permanent members, Russia can veto any action. This is the first time that the ICC has taken on the leader of one of these countries and has shown that they too are not untouchable.

Furthermore, the arrest warrant of course offers moral support to the Ukrainians. And who knows, it might strengthen the children who have been brought to Russia and who wonder whether they really want to adopt Russian nationality and identity. “We cannot allow children to be treated as spoils of war,” stated Khan Friday. He not only wants Putin and Lvova convicted, but also wants the children returned to Ukraine.

The ICC itself also knows that the chance of arrest is small. But justice is not the only goal of this step. The court hopes that the arrest warrants will have a deterrent effect and deportations will be prevented.

A direct consequence of the arrest warrants is that Putin’s freedom of movement has become smaller. There are 123 states worldwide affiliated to the ICC. If he sets foot on their soil, they are obliged to arrest him. In practice, this does not always work – as South Africa let Sudanese president Bashir walk in 2015 – but traveling has now become more difficult for Putin. This will remain the case for the rest of his life, even after he is president.

Lifting international sanctions is also more difficult as long as international arrest warrants are outstanding. Furthermore, Putin’s position on the world stage has now changed somewhat. Many countries have always been emphatically neutral in the war, in order to maintain their relationship with Russia. For them, that consideration has become a little more complicated. When Chinese President Xi Jinping lands in Moscow on Monday for a three-day state visit, he will be the guest of a wanted man.

Read also: Orphanage in Lviv: beads and My Little Pony to forget the war

2. How could an arrest still take place?

Earlier arrests of wanted government leaders show: never say never. Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic was eleven years old fugitive when he was arrested near Belgrade in 2008. The Serbian authorities had reason to look for him because it was a precondition for rapprochement to the European Union. A new political wind, which wants to deal with the past, may also arise in Moscow. Maria Lvova-Belova is in a more vulnerable position than Putin: a smaller fish is more easily thrown overboard.

Another possible scenario is that of former Liberian president Charles Taylor. He had been granted asylum in Nigeria, but in 2006 that country got tired of him and wanted to send him back. Taylor tried to flee across the border into Cameroon but was caught and put on a plane to The Hague. If Putin ever settles in a friendly foreign country, he too will forever depend on the benevolence of his host.

3. Why did the Criminal Court choose this one out of all the crimes in Ukraine?

This does not only have to do with the previously mentioned concerns about these children. More serious crimes take place in the war than the deportations, including against children. What makes this crime ‘suitable’ is, among other things, the availability of the evidence. Many Russians involved in the deportations are proud of this and are happy to share via (social) media that they have rescued a child from a war situation. For example, Maria Lvova divided Telegram that she herself adopted a teenager from Mariupol. The boy was still homesick at first, she wrote, but after two months it was already much better.

Another argument is that the deportations can be isolated from the discussion about the establishment of a special Ukraine tribunal. Ukraine and Western countries are eager to prosecute Putin for ‘aggression’, invading a country. The war crimes committed in that invasion must also be addressed, but the war started with Putin’s imperialism.

The ICC can only prosecute aggression if Russia recognizes the court’s jurisdiction in that area, and it does not. The Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs Hoekstra (CDA) pleads for the establishment of a separate tribunal in The Hague, but the establishment is uncertain, partly due to the Russian veto in the Security Council. If it comes, there must be a clear division of labor between this court, the ICC and the Ukrainian judiciary, which prosecutes arrested Russian soldiers. It could be years before that happens.