Legal Aspects of Mongolia and Other Countries Failing to Arrest Vladimir Putin: Violations of International Law and Potential Sanctions

Introduction

The international legal landscape is shaped by treaties, conventions, and customary international law. Among these, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) plays a pivotal role in upholding international justice. However, the enforcement of ICC warrants has proven challenging, especially when it comes to high-profile figures such as Russian President Vladimir Putin. Recently, countries like Mongolia have come under scrutiny for failing to arrest Putin, despite the existence of an ICC arrest warrant. This article explores the legal ramifications of such actions, potential sanctions, and the possible defenses available to these countries under international law.

The ICC Arrest Warrant for Vladimir Putin

In 2023, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin, accusing him of war crimes, specifically the unlawful deportation of children from Ukraine. The arrest warrant signifies that any ICC member state or country with an obligation to cooperate with the ICC must arrest Putin if he enters their territory. 

However, not all countries are ICC signatories, and some that are have opted not to enforce the warrant. For example, Mongolia, which shares significant political and economic ties with Russia, has been criticized for not complying with this mandate. This raises critical questions about the clash between international legal obligations and national sovereignty or political interests.

Legal Obligations Under International Law

Countries that are party to the Rome Statute have a legal obligation to cooperate with the ICC. Article 89 of the Rome Statute explicitly requires state parties to execute arrest warrants issued by the Court. Failure to comply with these obligations is a breach of the treaty, and it can result in legal consequences at the international level.

For non-ICC member states, like the United States, the obligation is less clear. These countries are not bound by the Rome Statute but could still face international pressure or be accused of violating other international norms if they deliberately obstruct justice by providing sanctuary or failing to arrest individuals indicted by the ICC.

The Role of Sovereign Immunity

One of the key defenses invoked by states that do not comply with ICC arrest warrants is the doctrine of sovereign immunity. According to customary international law, sitting heads of state generally enjoy immunity from arrest in foreign jurisdictions. This defense could be particularly relevant in the case of Putin, as many countries could argue that they cannot lawfully arrest a sitting head of state without breaching principles of sovereign equality and non-interference in the internal affairs of another country.
However, the ICC has clarified that such immunity does not apply in cases of international crimes such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide. Article 27 of the Rome Statute explicitly removes immunity for heads of state in such cases. Still, the practical enforcement of this provision is complicated by geopolitical interests and the risk of diplomatic repercussions.

Consequences for Failing to Arrest Putin

The consequences for countries that fail to arrest Vladimir Putin could vary, depending on whether they are ICC signatories or not.

1. Sanctions from the ICC

If an ICC member state fails to comply with the arrest warrant, the Court may refer the matter to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) for further action. While the ICC itself does not have enforcement mechanisms like an international police force, the UNSC can impose measures such as economic sanctions or diplomatic penalties.
However, enforcement via the UNSC could be hindered by political considerations, especially given that Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council and holds veto power. This reduces the likelihood of unified action against countries like Mongolia or others that fail to execute the arrest warrant.

 2. Economic and Diplomatic Sanctions

Countries that fail to arrest Putin could face bilateral sanctions from other states or regional organizations. For instance, Western powers, particularly the European Union and the United States, could impose economic or travel sanctions on countries that are seen as protecting Putin. Such sanctions could target trade agreements, financial aid, or even diplomatic relations.

3. Reputational Damage

Failing to comply with international legal obligations can also result in reputational damage. Countries that are perceived as not supporting international justice could see a decline in their standing on the global stage, affecting their ability to engage in diplomatic negotiations or trade agreements.

Defense Against International Pressure

Countries like Mongolia that face international pressure for failing to arrest Putin may resort to several defenses under international law:

1. Non-Party to the Rome Statute:

Non-signatory states to the Rome Statute may argue that they are not legally bound by the ICC’s decisions. Mongolia, however, is a signatory, and this defense would not apply to ICC member states. Nevertheless, non-signatory states can invoke principles of state sovereignty and territorial jurisdiction to resist external pressure.

2. Sovereign Immunity:
As mentioned, countries may argue that they are bound by customary international law, which grants immunity to sitting heads of state. They can claim that arresting Putin would violate their international obligations under other conventions, such as the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

3. Political and Economic Dependencies:

Countries with significant political or economic ties to Russia may argue that arresting Putin would have severe domestic consequences, including economic retaliation or political destabilization. This defense is pragmatic rather than legal, but it may be used in diplomatic discussions to justify inaction.

4. Non-Interference in Domestic Affairs:

Another defense that countries could invoke is the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of another state. Mongolia or other nations may argue that arresting a sitting president from a foreign country would violate this principle, risking unnecessary conflict.

 Conclusion

The failure of countries like Mongolia to arrest Russian President Vladimir Putin raises complex legal and geopolitical questions. While international law, particularly the Rome Statute, places an obligation on ICC member states to comply with arrest warrants, countries may invoke sovereign immunity, non-interference, or pragmatic defenses to resist international pressure.

The consequences for failing to arrest Putin could range from economic sanctions to diplomatic isolation. However, the enforcement of such measures remains uncertain, especially given Russia’s strategic importance and its influence within the United Nations Security Council.
In this evolving landscape, the balance between upholding international justice and managing national interests continues to be a significant challenge for the global community. 

STAY Connected:
Kapeesh Law Chambers 
Lawyers Chamber Block-II,
Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110003
admin@kapeeshlawchambers.com
www.kapeeshlawchambers.com