ICC judges issue arrest warrants against Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova

> The trials targeted 177 defendants and obtained 142 convictions, including 25 death sentences

> On 11 December 1946, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously passed a resolution affirming "the principles of international law recognized by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the judgment of the Tribunal".

But (thanks ceejayoz) https://legal.un.org/icc/statute/iccq&a.htm:

> Consistent with international human rights standards, the International Criminal Court has no competence to impose a death penalty. The Court can impose lengthy terms of imprisonment of up to 30 years or life when so justified by the gravity of the case. The Court may, in addition, order a fine, forfeiture of proceeds, property or assets derived from the committed crime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Taylor_(Liberian_polit...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhjcwbLAr0I

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/02/16/putins-childrens-e...

She is also a prominent public supporter of the programme, having abdicted herself a teenager from Mariupol.

Maybe, but even with heads-of-state where there were less in the way of, shall we say, practical deterrents, that has been problematic to make happen (e.g., Al-Bashir of Sudan, while he was in office.)

This moves the current situation further down the spectrum from "minor expansionist war we can pull out of and keep our heads on our bodies" and closer toward "potential existential crisis" from the point of view of Putin and his close buddies.

The ICC is basically saying to Putin that any future successor can earn a few (more than they already would) brownie points with the west (or at least the parts of it that have the most interest alignment with the ICC) by turning him in. In practice this does nothing other than make Putin less likely (not that he was very likely to begin with) to ever voluntarily relinquish office except on his deathbed (see also: Fidel Castro).

Putin eventually stepping down in favor of someone who will at least marginally improve relations with the west (not hard to imagine, over the years plenty of dictators have given up power to "moderate" successors in order to head off potential power struggles) would be good. This makes that marginally less likely (not that it was particularly likely in the sort/medium term).

Edit: INB4 someone inevitably tries to construe any of this as being pro-russia, it's not.

He doesn't, because he committed war crimes. Simple as.

> Appealing the Pre-Trial Chamber’s decision last year, lawyers for Jordan argued that because al-Bashir was a head of state at the time of his visit he was immune from arrest. But in its recent ruling, ICC judges concluded “there is no Head of State immunity under customary international law vis-a-vis an international court.”

Russia getting tired of Putin doesn’t require it crumbling in war.

> Additionally, the act does not prohibit the U.S. from assisting in the search and capture of foreign nationals wanted for prosecution by the ICC, specifically naming Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milošević, and Osama bin Laden as examples.

> Additionally, the act does not prohibit the U.S. from assisting in the search and capture of foreign nationals wanted for prosecution by the ICC

I mean, since ICC arrest warrants have no force in the US, it would be a violation of due process and hence false arrest, but the American Service Members Protection Act has nothing to do with that.

It would not be illegal, however, for American law enforcement officers to arrest him on a US warrant pursuant to an extradition request from a Rome Statue Party, because the ICC extradition protections in the Act extend only to US citizens, which Putin decidedly is not.

Of course, the US could also just try, convict, and execute Putin for war crimes itself in that case, and the ICC doesn’t apply the death penalty, so I’m not sure not getting extradited to the ICC would be a win for Putin, anyway. The US War Crimes statute allows US exercise of jurisdiction if either any part of the offense occurs in the US, any victim was a US citizen or service member, or the offender happens to be present in the US, regardless of where the crime occurred and the nationality of victims.